Health Care Bill's Constutionalty

[marharth]

Read the bill, no where does it say you HAVE to have insurance, the bill is passed and do you get arrested if you don't have insurance right now?

 

"mandatory insurance for individuals"

 

Car insurance is also unconstitutional if that's the reason, if you have a car, by law you need car insurance.

 

 

Our government is bought out by corporations, and I don't think that this bill changed much anyways.

 

IMO the democrats are acting like its a huge victory that will save the world when its not, and the republicans are acting like its going to turn us into evil health care giving nazis of doom.

 

The health care bill didn't change much at all, and both sides are making it look too big...

[Harbringe]

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.

 

Ooh Ooh up here Canada youhoo bright and shiny answer.72% public option ,28% private insurance (Dental and electives ,hey if you want a nice smile or bigger boobs pay for them yourself) .Only 9.9 - 10.1 % of our GDP in cost vs 15.6 - 16.7 of your GDP in costs , depending who you listen to.Despite what Insurance lobbyists and the like would have you believe there are no Death Panels in Canada ,all decisions are made locally as in my Doctor has the final power and if I don't like what he says I can go get another Doctors opinion.We don't have rationing its done on a need basis ,in fact if you look at the rate of denied claims in the US insurance industry its you who have rationing ,which is what Bben is describing (google it you will be stunned).Health costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy in the US ,not here in Canada and who shows up when you go bankrupt ,insurers ,bankers and their lawyers.Wow talk about earning a buck on the flip side.As for quality of care the last meta study I looked at had Canada leading in 11 categories ,the US in 7 ,and we were tied in 4.In fact our systems are so close in nature that prior to us switching a Canadian could be in the States and use his Canadian health insurer in an American hospital and an American could do the same in a Canadian hospital ,after 1971 it all changed.

 

The whole health care thing isn't something new in the US ,it was FDR who first proposed it but the caveat was first WW 2 had to be won and after you would get health care ,same thing here in Canada ,but after the war FDR was dead and the health insurers said oh no don't worry we can deliver ,well here in Canada we waited 25 years for them to deliver and finally we said enough is enough ,your not delivering ,meanwhile you in the US have been waiting for 65 years and you still haven't gotten what they promised ,so really how much longer are you going to wait ,20 , 40 ,60 years ,when do you say enough is enough.That's the only real difference between Canada and the US we stopped waiting.

 

As for the Constitutionality of the current bill ,I don't even think it matters (though I lean toward it being unconstitutional) still I voted undecided because likely it will be a lot of political noise and thunder that will signify nothing ,because that is exactly where the health insurers want it ,leaves them free to keep on keeping on and making oodles of money.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Harbringe

[grannywils]

Thanks Harbringe. Not bad. Liked most of it.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

I think it is wrong for the government to require a private citizen to purchase health insurance. It is effectively a tax on being alive- either you play money to the insurance company, or you pay it to the government because you aren't paying it to the insurance company.

 

The general belief seems to be that paying for healthcare through insurance coverage is somehow cheaper than paying up front- it isn't. Insurance companies make their money by setting their premiums high enough that the average person will never collect more than they pay. They are, in fact, playing the odds against you- and if you do require healthcare, the higher the cost of it is the harder your insurance company will fight having to pay because every single penny cuts into their profit margins. That isn't paranoia; it's how the industry works. It is the only industry in the world that only makes a profit when it is not doing what you pay it for.

 

They have no reason to lower their rates unless required by law to do so. Insurance rates are determined by all manner of ridiculous criteria, from your credit rating to your grades in high school- anything they can use to increase the premium, they will do so. Up until now, the only thing regulating insurance premiums has been the fact that people could drop their policies if they got too expensive. There is no competition; all of the major insurers follow the same broken game plan. That is what the government has made it illegal not to buy into, and premiums are only going to go up now that the insurance companies know their customers can't say no.

 

Comparisons are frequently drawn between car and health insurance, but there is one key difference- you can choose not to drive a car if you cannot afford or do not want to carry a car insurance policy. In order to choose not to pay for health insurance now, your only "option" is to not be alive.

 

Should there be a public option? I don't know. However, mandating private insurance is not the way to bring the cost of healthcare down. That provision alone makes the healthcare bill unconstitutional, and I believe that the courts will strike it down. Hopefully something better will rise in its place and make a positive change.

[marharth]

I will go ahead and say this, I DO NOT THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE MANDATORY INSURANCE.

 

But this bill did nothing of the sort.

 

I think you should be able to go into a government insurance program, so your rates can be low and you will always have insurance without question.

[juderodney]

 

Car insurance is also unconstitutional if that's the reason

 

Only if it's federally mandated, which it isn't. As far as states are concerned, the 10th amendment gives them exactly that right.

[Aurielius]

I will go ahead and say this, I DO NOT THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE MANDATORY INSURANCE.

 

But this bill did nothing of the sort.

 

I think you should be able to go into a government insurance program, so your rates can be low and you will always have insurance without question.

You evidently have not read the Bill, either you have insurance or you face monetary and civil penalties levied against you.....read the Bill if you are going to post about it. The mandatory portion of the bill is what was declared unconstitutional in the recent federal ruling.

 

"Judge Vinson argued that this is an atypical case in which the individual mandate is so “inextricably bound” to the remaining provisions that it cannot be severed.The core of these cases is whether Congress has the power to require people to buy health insurance.In his 78-page opinion, Judge Vinson held that the insurance requirement exceeded the regulatory powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. He wrote that the provision could not be rescued by an associated clause in Article I that gives Congress broad authority to make laws “necessary and proper” to carrying out its designated responsibilities. "

[marharth]

I will go ahead and say this, I DO NOT THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE MANDATORY INSURANCE.

 

But this bill did nothing of the sort.

 

I think you should be able to go into a government insurance program, so your rates can be low and you will always have insurance without question.

You evidently have not read the Bill, either you have insurance or you face monetary and civil penalties levied against you.....read the Bill if you are going to post about it. The mandatory portion of the bill is what was declared unconstitutional in the recent federal ruling.

 

"Judge Vinson argued that this is an atypical case in which the individual mandate is so “inextricably bound” to the remaining provisions that it cannot be severed.The core of these cases is whether Congress has the power to require people to buy health insurance.In his 78-page opinion, Judge Vinson held that the insurance requirement exceeded the regulatory powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. He wrote that the provision could not be rescued by an associated clause in Article I that gives Congress broad authority to make laws “necessary and proper” to carrying out its designated responsibilities. "

Post the exact words and a source that the bill has in it that makes it so you have to buy health insurance.

 

If that is there, which I didn't see, post the section of the Constitution that it collides with.

[NinjaGoddessAyra]

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.

 

Ooh Ooh up here Canada youhoo bright and shiny answer.72% public option ,28% private insurance (Dental and electives ,hey if you want a nice smile or bigger boobs pay for them yourself) .Only 9.9 - 10.1 % of our GDP in cost vs 15.6 - 16.7 of your GDP in costs , depending who you listen to.Despite what Insurance lobbyists and the like would have you believe there are no Death Panels in Canada ,all decisions are made locally as in my Doctor has the final power and if I don't like what he says I can go get another Doctors opinion.We don't have rationing its done on a need basis ,in fact if you look at the rate of denied claims in the US insurance industry its you who have rationing ,which is what Bben is describing (google it you will be stunned).Health costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy in the US ,not here in Canada and who shows up when you go bankrupt ,insurers ,bankers and their lawyers.Wow talk about earning a buck on the flip side.As for quality of care the last meta study I looked at had Canada leading in 11 categories ,the US in 7 ,and we were tied in 4.In fact our systems are so close in nature that prior to us switching a Canadian could be in the States and use his Canadian health insurer in an American hospital and an American could do the same in a Canadian hospital ,after 1971 it all changed.

 

The whole health care thing isn't something new in the US ,it was FDR who first proposed it but the caveat was first WW 2 had to be won and after you would get health care ,same thing here in Canada ,but after the war FDR was dead and the health insurers said oh no don't worry we can deliver ,well here in Canada we waited 25 years for them to deliver and finally we said enough is enough ,your not delivering ,meanwhile you in the US have been waiting for 65 years and you still haven't gotten what they promised ,so really how much longer are you going to wait ,20 , 40 ,60 years ,when do you say enough is enough.That's the only real difference between Canada and the US we stopped waiting.

 

As for the Constitutionality of the current bill ,I don't even think it matters (though I lean toward it being unconstitutional) still I voted undecided because likely it will be a lot of political noise and thunder that will signify nothing ,because that is exactly where the health insurers want it ,leaves them free to keep on keeping on and making oodles of money.

I've been going to Canada every summer since I was a little girl, and my family would spend the summers on a cabin by a lake. We met a family that lived nearby there, one of which was an older man named George. He was a great guy and well liked by everybody.

Well he had a cancerous tumor the size of a tennis ball coming out of his shoulder, he went to the hospital, and was put on an 8 month waiting list. Sad thing is, there was a good chance he could have lived if he had gotten treated on time, but instead he never lived the eight months.

My point is, if thats what universal health care is like, then I sure don't want it as a law passed in my country, considering what I've seen it do to Canada's.

[Aurielius]

I will go ahead and say this, I DO NOT THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE MANDATORY INSURANCE.

 

But this bill did nothing of the sort.

 

I think you should be able to go into a government insurance program, so your rates can be low and you will always have insurance without question.

You evidently have not read the Bill, either you have insurance or you face monetary and civil penalties levied against you.....read the Bill if you are going to post about it. The mandatory portion of the bill is what was declared unconstitutional in the recent federal ruling.

 

"Judge Vinson argued that this is an atypical case in which the individual mandate is so “inextricably bound” to the remaining provisions that it cannot be severed.The core of these cases is whether Congress has the power to require people to buy health insurance.In his 78-page opinion, Judge Vinson held that the insurance requirement exceeded the regulatory powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. He wrote that the provision could not be rescued by an associated clause in Article I that gives Congress broad authority to make laws “necessary and proper” to carrying out its designated responsibilities. "

Post the exact words and a source that the bill has in it that makes it so you have to buy health insurance.

 

If that is there, which I didn't see, post the section of the Constitution that it collides with.

 

 

"In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people."`~ Source CBS News

If you read my post it's constitutionality is in question with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. It's not my purview to do your research, use a search engine it will only take you a few minutes, less time than you use to post without bothering to be accurately informed. This is a complicated subject and it does affect you, take an interest in your government and how it affects you.