Health Care Bill's Constutionalty

[Aurielius]

A federal judge in Florida has declared the US Healthcare Reform Bill unconstitutional.

In a suit brought by 26 states, Judge Roger Vinson ruled that individual rights were being impinged upon through the requirement that Americans purchase health insurance or face penalties.

 

Judge Vinson struck down the entire act, saying he did so because mandatory insurance for individuals is central to the bill.

In a written ruling, the judge stopped short of ordering the federal government to abandon the law.

He wrote: "Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution."

While Judge Vinson is the fourth federal judge to rule on the constitutionality of the reform bill, the matter is now certain to end up in the Supreme Court.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Aurielius

[Harbringe]

A federal judge in Florida has declared the US Healthcare Reform Bill unconstitutional.

In a suit brought by 26 states, Judge Roger Vinson ruled that individual rights were being impinged upon through the requirement that Americans purchase health insurance or face penalties.

 

Judge Vinson struck down the entire act, saying he did so because mandatory insurance for individuals is central to the bill.

In a written ruling, the judge stopped short of ordering the federal government to abandon the law.

He wrote: "Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution."

While Judge Vinson is the fourth federal judge to rule on the constitutionality of the reform bill, the matter is now certain to end up in the Supreme Court.

 

Two of the four have upheld it ,one has struck down certain provisions and Vinson the last one to rule struck it down in its entirety .Perhaps a not certain or its undetermined should be added to the poll.

[Lisnpuppy]

Its really hard to tell how this one will go. There is a great deal of politics behind it all, make no mistake. But the courts have largely let certain items stand that were in a similar nature...for example laws requiring seat belts and wearing helmets while on a motorcycle or the like. I do realize it isn't exactly the same..so don't go jumping all over that. My point is that there will very likely be some form of health care come out and able to stand as the courts will view the finalized bill that we finally get (and this will be a long time coming) as more beneficial to the public than the impingement that it sets on individual rights.

 

As a entirety and in general...I don't see it as a unconstitutional act. Certain specific points or acts of the bill may be.

[bben46]

IMO- /begin rant/

Unfortunately, this bill and any others I have seen proposed by congress are all written by and for the health care insurance lobby and have very little to do with actual health care at all. There will be no real health-care reform until we find a way around allowing the insurance companies skim billions from healthcare. A large proportion of the cost of healthcare is in the overhead and profit of the insurance companies.

 

I agree with this particular judge on the constitutionality of this law. In that it requires everyone to pay the health care insurance companies for basic healthcare. Thus placing an industry (the health insurance companies) above the law in that it guarantees the profit for the health insurance companies without guaranteeing healthcare! How is this legal?

 

This law is NOT by any stretch a law that guarantees basic healthcare to anyone, let alone everyone as it was hyped by the press. It is a law that gives the insurance companies the right to penalize people for not having health insurance. According to this law, you MUST, by law have health care insurance. And as a law it carries the threat of jail even though congress is saying that will never happen. (Remember that congress once said that income tax would never rise above 2% so we didn't need a law to cap it there.)

 

Currently, the US has the worst and most expensive health care system of any major country. Cuba has a better system.

/end rant/

 

Now lets hear your opinion.

[Lisnpuppy]

I don't necessarily disagree with you BBen. But as a person that has a considerable amount of pre-existing illnesses and has BEEN WITHOUT health insurance before....I know something has to be done and I am willing to try almost anything to get it started. As for the unconstitutionality of it...I still can not say. Wisely so, our constitution is flux to change with the times...but that same flux also allows manipulation of these kinda things according to politics. I simply stated that similar ideas of making an individual perform an action or purchase something has not always been struck down.

 

Personally I despise the drug and insurance companies. I have had insurance servers deny DIABETIC medication to me. I mean come on...like I just enjoy shooting myself in the tummy three times a day.

 

I strongly suspect what would happen is the government would end up controlling the price of medical coverage or provide supplements or tax breaks to offset all this...which would be a nightmare but there you have it.

[bben46]

@Lisnpuppy: I agree that something must be done. However turning the entire health care of a nation over to a group of for profit companies isn't going to 'fix' anything. It will just insure the profits of those companies and make them a defacto monopoly. Giving them even more control over your medication.

 

I don't have a solution and have not seen a viable one yet. This Law means you get to pay another tax automatically deducted from your paycheck, whether you agree or not, and given directly to the insurance companies. Not paying that insurance tax means you are subject to prosecution by the US Government for not contributing to the profits of a private company. The insurance companies get to have the feds bust you for not paying them, and the fees for your arrest and prosecution will be paid by the taxpayers, leaving even more profit for the insurance companies.

 

Note that this law has not actually taken effect yet. However, I expect the insurance companies to play nice at first, allowing this law to become ingrained as a 'good' thing. Then after a few years start milking it for humongous profits at the expense of the people who cannot refuse to pay them for fear of government prosecution.

 

The same people who decide that you don't rate diabetic medication now get to decide when you no longer qualify for the reduced poverty rate for their insurance and must now pay whatever they decree or be prosecuted by the government.

 

My LATE diabetic brother in law, who had other health problems and lived only on social security disability was quoted a rate of over 20% of his annual take home social security disability income for health insurance - and that was the BEST rate he found. In order to get any health care at all he had to apply for medicare disability. It seems that just being on Social Security Disability does not mean you get Medicare. And getting on Medicare when under the age of 65 can take 2 or more years! That's 2 years without any health insurance and high medical bills. His savings were wiped out in less than a year by medical bills that an insurance company said were not covered by the policy he had been paying on for years. That's why he was looking for another insurance company.

[Harbringe]

@Lisnpuppy: I agree that something must be done. However turning the entire health care of a nation over to a group of for profit companies isn't going to 'fix' anything. It will just insure the profits of those companies and make them a defacto monopoly. Giving them even more control over your medication.

 

I so agree ,people think this Health Care thing is a step forward and really all it does is end up giving the health insurers a virtual monopoly and with a overhead of 30% that will end up being ingrained into the American system.Compare that to the 2-3% overhead here in Canada and its obvious this bill is a money making scheme.

 

As for its Constitutionality well if they rule people cant be forced to pay into it ,does that also mean people cant be forced to pay into other programs or government expenditures ,such as you don't agree with the war ,the education system maybe even taxes itself ,can you opt out because you don't agree with it.

 

Even something as simple as charity ,tax breaks are given for it , now the loss of that money is made up in general revenue taxes ,which you or I would make up for ,but what if you or I don't agree with another's choice in charity why should you be forced to make up that shortfall in taxes.If they rule people can opt out of this because its their Constitutional right to do so ,you can expect a lot of people making the case they can do the same for many other things.

[Balagor]

I agree with bben46 in most,Weather it is inconstitutionel, I cannot not say, since I am not American and am not familiar with American politics and laws.

However what I can tell you is to get rid of the insurance companies, Raise the tax with how many percents it needs, and have the gouvernment run all hospitals and emergencies. Does it sound like sociallism? Perhaps. And so what! It works. Even a lot cheaper. No more giant profits for the insurance companies, How are they gonna make the living then? Well, they still got car insurance, house insurance, life insurance and many others to tend to.

[grannywils]

IMO- /begin rant/

Unfortunately, this bill and any others I have seen proposed by congress are all written by and for the health care insurance lobby and have very little to do with actual health care at all. There will be no real health-care reform until we find a way around allowing the insurance companies skim billions from healthcare. A large proportion of the cost of healthcare is in the overhead and profit of the insurance companies.

 

I agree with this particular judge on the constitutionality of this law. In that it requires everyone to pay the health care insurance companies for basic healthcare. Thus placing an industry (the health insurance companies) above the law in that it guarantees the profit for the health insurance companies without guaranteeing healthcare! How is this legal?

 

This law is NOT by any stretch a law that guarantees basic healthcare to anyone, let alone everyone as it was hyped by the press. It is a law that gives the insurance companies the right to penalize people for not having health insurance. According to this law, you MUST, by law have health care insurance. And as a law it carries the threat of jail even though congress is saying that will never happen. (Remember that congress once said that income tax would never rise above 2% so we didn't need a law to cap it there.)

 

Currently, the US has the worst and most expensive health care system of any major country. Cuba has a better system.

/end rant/

 

Now lets hear your opinion.

 

Basically, I agree with you pretty much entirely bben46. I am not too familiar with the court case mentioned in the OP, but will read up on it. I will say here, and take it back later if I prove to be mistaken that it sounds to me like more of a "political" issue than a one that is concerned with health care.

 

I do not however believe that the Health Care bill is "unconstitutional". I agree with LisnPuppy when she says that our brilliantly written Constitution was composed in such a way as to allow it to be changed as the world evolved and developed. Just as an aside, Thomas Jefferson is one of my heroes when it comes to forward thinkers. But that being neither here nor there, my opinion is that the present Health Care bill is a convoluted mish mash created out of desperation to get something accomplished. I also happen to have opinions as to why it happened this way. (everyone gasp here). I will not go into a great deal of detail regarding those opinions. Most of you who know me will probably have a fairly good grasp of where I stand on that issue.

 

We desperately need health care reform in this nation, and we definitely do not need the insurance companies to have their sticky, grasping fingers involved in it in any way, shape or form. However, lo and behold we seem to have a bill that was practically written by and for them; not by and for the people (including those "people" who happen to be members of Congress).

 

We the people need to find a way to get our Congress people to represent US and not the pockets of the INSURANCE COMPANIES, etal.

 

Unfortunately, as much as I would now like to provide a bright, shining answer, I must come up short. I have run out of answers for today. But I am still thinking on it.

[juderodney]

If it is held up that the federal government can require us to buy health insurance, then they can make any requirement as to what to buy and even what not to buy. Just where in the Constitution is that argument feasible. The document is NOT one that grants powers to the government, but one that LIMITS them. So no, imo this law is unconstitutional.

 

And Ben, if you saw "Sicko", see it again and look at what country ranks just below Slovenia.