So, not only have the Democrats won a great victory with the passage of the health care bill but now the GOP has given them two bonus gifts. The first is the promise that they will run this year on repealing the bill. No doubt, the Dems will lose seats in the coming election but they are going to lose a lot less if this is the platform on which the GOP will stand.
If I were an independent voter (see: Reagan Democrat), I would wonder what exactly the GOP stands for in their party. If I were an intelligent independent voter, I would wonder why a group of people who want to be elected to a government position hate the government so much.
But the real kicker is that many states, coincidentally with attorneys general running for governor, want to SUE the federal government over the recently passed health care bill. Let me see here...hmm...the Cult screams about tort reform and now...is suing? Cool...
I have to admit I was worried about the midterms. I no longer am concerned at all.
12 comments:
Watch Glenn Beck this afternoon. He's going in depth into social justice.
This isn't about tort reform at all. It's about the constitution and since everything is in the prism of who is going to win the next election in the short term, I'm guessing a discussion of the constitution or long term implications of this precedent may go nowhere quickly. The tort reform I speak of has to do with punitive damages and the difficult to define "pain and suffering", not constitutional law.
It’s been known for some time now that legislation requiring that every American have health insurance was going to be part of a major healthcare reform bill that was no doubt going to make its way through Washington. The gubmint will now have a lot more authority over individual Americans so is it really a surprise that some people are going to wonder if the new mandate is constitutional? The Constitution's Framers divided power between the federal government and states - just as they did among the three federal branches of government - for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty.
The elephant in the room is the Constitution. As every civics class once taught, the federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers, with the states retaining broad regulatory authority. James Madison said in the Federalist Papers that the governments jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects. In other words, Congress cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution...mostly Article I, Section 8, which among other things gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support a military, establish post offices and regulate commerce. Most of the elaborate federal regulations we see today fall under the umbrella of Commerce (to say that we spent a lot of time dissecting the Commerce Clause in my business law class last year would be an understatement). If the federal government has any right to reform, revise or remake the American health-care system, it must be found in the Commerce Clause. This would be especially true of any mandate that mandates that every American obtain health insurance or face a penalty.
The Supreme Court construes the commerce power broadly but there are important limits. Your friend and mine Kevin Baker, along with Ed, Juris, etc, will probably remember the 1995 case United States v. Lopez where the Supreme Court invalidated the Gun Free School Zones Act because that law made it a crime simply to possess a gun near a school. You see, the law that was passed by our legislators didn’t regulate any economic activity and did not have a predictable impact on future commercial activity, therefore it was deemed unconstitutional. A health-care mandate would not technically regulate an "activity" either...simply being an American would trigger the regulation.
The folks in DC who are writing the health care legislation understand this, which is why they have framed their mandate as a "tax" rather than a regulation (the Baucus bill called it an "excise tax"). We’re going to find out in short order what the constitutional limits of Congress are. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured very well may be a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind whether it is obtaining health insurance, joining a health club, exercising regularly, or even eating your vegetables.
The Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate "regulatory" taxes in recent history but a tax that is deemed to be a penalty for failing to comply with requirements that are beyond Congress's constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress's power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court may not accept the individual mandate that was just signed into law today no matter how bad Natoma Canfield needs help with her health insurance.
Republicans have insisted that insurance companies be able to sell policies across state lines. That de facto establishes them as strong supporters of federal regulation of the health insurance industry, since that falls squarely under the aegis of interstate commerce.
We have long had a Social Security and Medicare taxes that are levied on everyone making a salary who doesn't otherwise have a qualifying plan (many federal and state employees don't pay Social Security because they already have a similar pension plan -- which is a problem now, as so many states have pension plans that are going bust faster than Social Security).
The health insurance mandate is in principle similar to the Social Security mandate. The main difference with the current plan is that the Democrats listened to the Republicans. The current plan has private enterprise provide the health care: the government is not collecting a tax, it is requiring that you buy insurance from a third party. Since we know that full coverage for all requires that everyone who can must pay, and the Republicans think it's wrong for us to be forced to buy a private plan, that must mean that the Republicans favor a government-run, -funded and -controlled health care system.
There's been all this shouting about social justice, but no one is saying anything about social responsibility. I'm in favor of both. That means that people in trouble should be helped, and people shouldn't shirk their civic duty and make sure that they aren't a drag on society. They should pay for themselves when they can. They should be responsible for their messes and clean them up.
Part of that duty is to make sure you do what you can to keep yourself and your family healthy, which means making sure you have health coverage even if you're young, because accidents happen.
I have family members who are very conservative and rail about what a terrible socialist Obama is, yet they have used the state-subsidized health care plan, receive Social Security and Medicare.
My fifty-year-old libertarian-leaning sister suffered a stroke and is now living on Social Security and a state-subsidized insurance program. She had brain surgery in the best hospital in the state, two months after signing up with the state insurance program. She cannot speak, so I can't ask her what her opinion is of the health care bill.
But she's alive because of the very sorts of "socialist" programs that my father has been denouncing. Without that socialist insurance program and that socialist Medicare program both my father and sister would almost certainly be dead today. And I think everyone in the country should benefit from those same sorts of programs, and all socially responsible Americans should be glad to help pay for it. Because we're all going to be in the boat one day.
"the government is not collecting a tax"
Uh, wrong.
M, I just checked the thread called "The Estimate" assuming I would find it there, but I didn't. I think it must just be an oversight on your part, so to be sure your readers hear a multitude of points of view, I will provide the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html
Full Disclosure: Mr. Holtz-Eakin was the chief economic policy advisor for the McCain campaign. Having said that, Mr. Holtz-Eakin is a strong enough economist to have been the former director of the CBO and to have been appointed to the FCIC.
http://www.fcic.gov/about
So will this bill reduce the deficit or not? 5 days ago you jumped all over a story that suggested it would, and accused anybody who didn't believe it of being "inside the cocoon". Is that still your position?
...or it could be a de facto establishment of DEregulation of the health insurance industry.
The health insurance mandate is NOT similar to the social security mandate. You are engaging in commerce when you are taxed for social security and medicare (it is taken out of your paycheck and you had to engage in commerce to receive a paycheck).
"it is requiring that you buy insurance from a third party."
Bingo. That's what is going to be challenged in court. Does "not having health insurance" qualify as commerce? You technically aren't engaging in anything by "not" having health insurance. THAT'S the issue regarding the upcoming lawsuits so who cares "what Republicans think".
Regarding personal responsibility...
since it's the law of the land now, there should still be some period where pre-existing conditons are not covered if you haven't had prior coverage. If you don't have a waiting period, people will move in and out of coverage as needed)one of those pesky unintended consequences).
If you are going to force insurance companies to accept every person regardless of health conditons then there should still be some differentiation of premiums on the basis of those condtions. The Senate bill said you could differentiate premiums for smoking. Good. Apply that to obesity, alcoholism and addiction. Say to them, "Ok, you're covered but you will pay twice for your coverage what a fit person who does not smoke or drink to excess will pay. But let's make a contract. When you improve your lifestyle, we'll lower your rates. Fall into your old ways again and your rates go back up." It would be better to have them pay more at the start and earn the reduction in premiums, than to pay the same to start and be penalized for not improving.
Their weight will go down and the conditons will go away. Not for everyone but for a large majority of them. We cannot afford to give away the most sophisticated medicine in the world without an expectation of self responsiblity. Not treating alcholics and addicts is deemed as unconscionable by many but so is lettting them have medical coverage at no increased premium and with no demand that they get cured, and then dumping their costs on the rest of the population. We must give a financial incentive for positive lifestyle changes and it must be big enough to cause a change. If you don't, you will accelerate obesity and accelerate health care inflation.
last sez You see, the law that was passed by our legislators didn’t regulate any economic activity and did not have a predictable impact on future commercial activity, therefore it was deemed unconstitutional.
Oh, sadly, you didn't read the fine print of Lopez - wherein the Court informed its esteemed counterparts in Congress that what was lacking wasn't a tangible connection to commerce, but the proper incantation summoning the nexus to commerce.
Okay, they didn't really say incantation (probably because Kozinski isn't a Justice) but that was the gist of the decision - you simply have to put the proper words in and voila, instant karma-erce.
Yep, it went nowhere quickly. Time to move on to the next Palin quote.
They ran away so fast from this discussion. Must not be enough insults in here.
rld, it's what they do. Ignoring what he doesn't like is Marxy's most common response (#1). Here's a recent example of one he still hasn't answered:
"Ed, so what if he wants it?"
Here are your own words:
"But not for the Cult. Oh no. If they say it, then (poof! like magic), it is now true."
…
"I explained to her that there is no public option in the bill. She informed that it's coming next. I reiterated how that it is not in the bill. It didn't matter...it was still coming…"
In other words, you called her crazy for thinking that getting single-payer is one of Obama's goals. I showed you proof that Obama does in fact want a single-payer system.
The "so what" is that she was right and you are wrong! Are you finally willing to admit that?
Time to move on to the next Palin quote.
Close last. He switched over to his other favorite idiot Republican woman.
Post a Comment