Thread: HCR - unconstitutional?

Prior to the passing of the health care reform bill, there was plenty of debate about it.

Now that it's passed, it seems like a good time to discuss what we (the US) actually got.

My specific beef is with one particular aspect of the new bill: namely the mandate that "citizens will be required to have acceptable coverage or pay a penalty."

How is this constitutional? The point was to make health care available for all, not create a mandate that forces people to partake. And further, they plan to place additional taxes on things such as tanning beds (what's next? Higher taxes for contruction workers and other outdoor employees?).

Perhaps our resident attorney can shed light on the validity of this.

More importantly, though, is it a good idea for the government to not only take steps to reform health care, but to also FORCE everyone to participate?

It's constitutional on two grounds: 1) The commerce clause of the Constitution is written in broad terms, and the Supreme Court has two hundred years of precedent giving Congress a wide scope of authority under which to operate. So long as Congress can prove that health care is related to commerce, they are endowed with the power to regulate it as they see fit. 2) If the previous item were to somehow fail (which would require an act of "judicial activism", given the precedent at hand), Congress would argue in court that what they are doing is not in fact 'forcing' anyone to carry health insurance. They would make the claim that they are installing a new item in the tax code related to health care. Anyone who carries a policy would then be entitled to a tax credit to offset the cost, leaving only those who go without insurance paying it. This would make the individual mandate an issue of taxation, something Congress is explicitly allowed to control.

The tax on tanning beds is not an Orwellian power grab by the government. Tanning beds have been shown in studies to cause cancer, which will require more spending on health care to treat. Putting a tax on a known carcinogen is no different than taxing cigarettes, this one simply has a slightly better reputation among people who don't know anything about anything.

Furthermore, the only way health care reform can work is to include everyone, or else the system will still be one where people with insurance will be paying for those without insurance. One system has a hidden cost, the other a known cost. The payment is the same either way.

It's a complete joke, constitutional or not. I stopped using illegal drugs because I was sick of the government fucking me over for it. I thought I was in the clear, an upright citizen. Now because I don't have health care, and have no intention of buying it from an insurance company, they've made me a criminal again. And I don't have any money to pay their fines either. So it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Whatever small hits the insurance companies will take from the pre-existing condition stuff the HCR is mandating, they'll make twice as much from the thirty-seven million or so new customers that are being forced to buy their service. And it's not like they weren't making obscene profits beforehand.

Do you people own cars?

Because last time I checked, automobile liability insurance was mandatory in all 50 states.

It has been for some time. No constitutional challenges to it that I know of.

Originally Posted by alanmt

Do you people own cars?

Because last time I checked, automobile liability insurance was mandatory in all 50 states.

It has been for some time. No constitutional challenges to it that I know of.

That is because we can choose to own the car or not, we can't choose to have a body.

Originally Posted by Dr. Malone

It's a complete joke, constitutional or not. I stopped using illegal drugs because I was sick of the government fucking me over for it. I thought I was in the clear, an upright citizen. Now because I don't have health care, and have no intention of buying it from an insurance company, they've made me a criminal again. And I don't have any money to pay their fines either. So it'll be interesting to see what happens.

I can't help but laugh when anyone, not just you, complains about the government doing something when the law is being broken.

You apparently missed the part of the discussion where cost was brought up. People under a certain income threshold will be enrolled on Medicade, therefore not subject to the "penalty". People above that line but below other qualifications will be eligible for a subsidy to help offset the cost of a policy. The "penalty" is designed to only be inflicted upon people who can afford insurance but refuse to buy it, thereby burdening society when they get sick. It doesn't surprise me that such details have gone unknown.

I can't even get the government to give me disability, despite having three doctors writing notes saying I need it. I'll believe them helping me in any way when I see it. I hope you're right.

Originally Posted by alanmt

Do you people own cars?

Because last time I checked, automobile liability insurance was mandatory in all 50 states.

It has been for some time. No constitutional challenges to it that I know of.

Right, but it's also at the state level, is it not? Automobile insurance (and automobile laws -- helmet laws, for example) varies state-by-state for this reason, no?

Furthermore, as stated, automobile insurance is voluntary in the sense that one can choose to not own a car and thereby avoid the associative costs of car ownership.

Originally Posted by C.M.C.

It's constitutional on two grounds: 1) The commerce clause of the Constitution is written in broad terms, and the Supreme Court has two hundred years of precedent giving Congress a wide scope of authority under which to operate. So long as Congress can prove that health care is related to commerce, they are endowed with the power to regulate it as they see fit.

That seems slippery at best. The whole argument against the current system is how the "business" of insurance has driven up costs and made health care unaffordable. To justify ramming through the new law based on commerce law is just trading one evil for another.

The tax on tanning beds is not an Orwellian power grab by the government.

But the point is that it's ridiculous. The primary difference between tanning beds and cigarettes is that if I choose to not smoke, the chances of me developing health problems related to smoking are virtually none. If I choose to not go to a tanning bed, that doesn't inherently lessen my opportunities to expose myself to skin problems unless I also choose to never go outside or I'm diligent about sun lotion. And therein lies the rub. A person can easily avoid the "tanning bed tax" by foregoing the convenience of the tanning bed, and yet still suffer any and all ill-effects. And it does nothing to address the millions of people who spend considerable time outside and develop the same problems without ever visting a tanning salon.

So then, will there next be a "new item in the tax code" that applies to anyone who works in the sun? Or maybe that applies to purchasing a certain amount of sun lotion? There doesn't need to be any sort of "Orwellian intent" in order to see how this "government knows what's best for you" mentality can lead to all sorts of nonsense.

Furthermore, the only way health care reform can work is to include everyone, or else the system will still be one where people with insurance will be paying for those without insurance.

That's a broad claim. You're going to have to back up the statement that this is the *only* way it can work.

Originally Posted by Zuiun

That seems slippery at best. The whole argument against the current system is how the "business" of insurance has driven up costs and made health care unaffordable. To justify ramming through the new law based on commerce law is just trading one evil for another.

The justification is only for legal purposes, not the spirit of the law. Besides, your critique doesn't make any argument for the law being "evil", so you're arguing with yourself on this one.

But the point is that it's ridiculous. The primary difference between tanning beds and cigarettes is that if I choose to not smoke, the chances of me developing health problems related to smoking are virtually none. If I choose to not go to a tanning bed, that doesn't inherently lessen my opportunities to expose myself to skin problems unless I also choose to never go outside or I'm diligent about sun lotion. And therein lies the rub. A person can easily avoid the "tanning bed tax" by foregoing the convenience of the tanning bed, and yet still suffer any and all ill-effects. And it does nothing to address the millions of people who spend considerable time outside and develop the same problems without ever visting a tanning salon.

The difference is that tanning beds expose the tanner to far more radiation than regular exposure to the sun does. Couple that with the fact that there is no practical use for the things, and they become a luxury that is subject to taxation the same way that cars with terrible gas mileage are hit with an extra tax when purchased.

That's a broad claim. You're going to have to back up the statement that this is the *only* way it can work.

It is, because reform that doesn't cover almost everyone isn't reform, unless you completely ban anyone without insurance from getting even a Band-Aid at the emergency room. Since that will never happen, you have two choices. You can either have a system where healthy people can go without insurance, show up at the emergency room and get treated without paying the whole bill, and then have that cost passed on to everyone with insurance through premium increases and increased taxes to cover the government's part, or you can have a system where everyone has insurance and the risk pool is spread to include everyone. In both cases the cost is spread among everyone, but in one of them that cost is accrued through hidden means.

I suppose there is a third way, but that would be the socialistic idea of a single-payer system, which America is nowhere near ready to consider. Until they are, that leaves you with paying the bill up front, or paying the bill after the fact. Take your pick, just know that they amount to mostly the same thing.

My main problem with it is that there is no public option (I think the mandated purchase is ridiculous, but I never had any intention of paying it or the fines, so it wasn't anything I was getting worried over...and hopefully CMC's bit of info will prove true). Kucinich really let me down by voting for the current bill after he insisted he wouldn't vote for anything without single payer. I thought he'd be the only one of the corrupt bastards to stay true to his word. They didn't get a single republican vote anyway, and the republicans are doing everything in their power to stop the bill even in it's current form, so the dems might as well gone ahead and put single payer in.

Originally Posted by Dr. Malone

the dems might as well gone ahead and put single payer in.

If you think they had enough votes to do that, you're crazy.

Am I understanding this right? We are required to purchase health insurance from a private company?

This health care imposition has little to do with providing for people's medical needs. It is about government control over the population. George Orwell saw the future. Speculative fiction has become socialist fact. We no longer have a government that serves our people. We have a dictatorship by 51 %. I hope the Supreme Court strikes down this assault against personal freedom. If they don't, I fear freedom fighters may take arms against our government. I wonder how long Americans will support Obama when domestic violence starts resulting in IED's right here in our homeland. If you think about it, no war in our history killed more Americans than our own Civil War. Are we about to repeat it?

Ironically, we STILL need health-care reform, more than ever. It should begin with the complete de-funding of this current monstrosity, replacing it with sensible rules that generate better health-care access while defending personal freedom.

There's going to be a huge march on the Oklahoma City anniversary by a couple different militia groups whom are teaming up for the event. They're claiming they'll come to the event armed as well.

Poor taste if you ask me.

Originally Posted by NaClmine

This health care imposition has little to do with providing for people's medical needs. It is about government control over the population. George Orwell saw the future. Speculative fiction has become socialist fact. We no longer have a government that serves our people. We have a dictatorship by 51 %. I hope the Supreme Court strikes down this assault against personal freedom. If they don't, I fear freedom fighters may take arms against our government. I wonder how long Americans will support Obama when domestic violence starts resulting in IED's right here in our homeland. If you think about it, no war in our history killed more Americans than our own Civil War. Are we about to repeat it?

Ironically, we STILL need health-care reform, more than ever. It should begin with the complete de-funding of this current monstrosity, replacing it with sensible rules that generate better health-care access while defending personal freedom.

I find it amazing that people are so up in arms ove a bill designed to help people who need it, yet they never said a word about policies that allowed the President and the government from capturing and imprisoning citizens forever without charging them with a crime or providing evidence. And this is Orwellian?