Health Reform Takes Another Hit, This Time in Florida

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Jan 31, 2011.

?

Time for single payer in the U.S.?

Poll closed Feb 28, 2011.
  1. Obviously

    58.3%
  2. No — People actually getting their money's worth for health care is anti-American

    8.3%
  3. No — Health reform should strengthen and empower insurance companies

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Other (???)

    33.3%
  1. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    And THUS they don't cross STATE LINES for treatment because it is in fact an emergency.

    Arthur
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Here is one of your problems. Already existing law says otherwise - you know one of those pesky little problems that Republicans/Tea Partiers like to ignore.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Apparently you did...funny how that works.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
  8. Startraveler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    113
    Both judges who've ruled against the mandate have agreed that the rest of the insurance market reforms (e.g. setting up health insurance exchanges with guaranteed issue and community rating rules) in the ACA are an acceptable use of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The argument that makes the most sense to me in favor of the individual mandate is not that it is itself also an exercise of the Commerce Clause power but rather that Congress has the power to institute it because it's necessary and proper to effectively instituting the other insurance market regulations. That is, after all, why it was included in the legislation--the policy argument that you need something strong to deter adverse selection won out over the political argument that the individual mandate is very unpopular.
     
  9. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    I don't think the Supremes will look at it as allowing something that is unconstitional as being ok because it is "necessary and proper".

    We'll see.

    Arthur
     
  10. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    NO.

    Unless you can provide proof that I'm wrong then YOU are wrong.

    Arthur
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Do a little research on your own Arthur...just like you did not know that the "individual mandate" that you and other Republicans/Tea Partiers are hammering Democrats with originated with Republicans almost two decades ago.

    It was a fine Republican concept when Republican Governor Romney implemented it. But when Democrats pursue it, suddenly it is state takeover, marxist, socialist, every kind is ist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2011
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Which ought to make you stop and think a minute. That isn't a mark in its favor.
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I agree with you Ice. But it is what it is. And our current system is so bad, even the individual mandate is better than nothing. This issue clearly demonstrates the power of special interests in this country. The healthcare industry is one of the richest and most powerful special interests in the country. And that is why change that attempts to favor the healthcare consumer is so difficult.
     
  14. Startraveler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    113
    You're begging the question here. The argument (one of several but the one I like best) is that the mandate is constitutional through the N&P clause.
     
  15. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Whenever you say that I know, like always you have NADA.

    Arthur
     
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yes, but that was a STATE plan, and I have no problem with a STATE mandate (assuming the State's constitution allows it).

    You see the article almost had it right:

    But the Commerce Clause only gives Congress the authority to regulate Interstate Commerce, and this simply doesn't fit under that catagory.

    Which is why today your Health Insurance is regulated and controlled at the STATE level, not by the Feds.

    Arthur
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Wrong yet again Arthur. State regulatory authority over insurance companies comes from The Congress of the United States of Ameria in the form of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran–Ferguson_Act
     
  18. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Well we will just have to wait and see what the Supremes say about it now won't we, because it is not just regulating insurance, it is forcing you to buy it.

    Arthur
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    When logic, fact and reason fail Arthur all you have left at the end of the day is that fact the supreme court of the United States is ruled/controlled by a bunch of conservative party hacks who make a lot of money performing for Republican/Tea Party causes. Congress can force people to do a lot of things they may not want to do. That is the power the founding fathers gave Congress. The founding fathers never said everyone had to agree 100 percent on everything. If they had, the country would not have survived.

    If Republicans/Tea Partiers are successful in defeating healthcare reform because of their hacks on the supremes, they will not like what comes next. And there will be a next. Because the current healthcare system is not sustainable.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2011
  20. Startraveler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    113
    I'm not sure I agree with the "force" language. Under the individual mandate, if you choose to go without insurance and don't fall under one of the five categories for exemption then your income tax burden will be higher. But right now if I were to go to my employer and negotiate for a wage equivalent to my health benefit (i.e. substituting wages for health benefits), my income tax burden would go up, even though the total value of my compensation package would be unchanged. Am I currently being "forced" to accept that health benefit? I suppose my issue here is that talk of "force" implies a lack of choice; a tax incentive (or disincentive, as the case may be) doesn't remove choice. That's why there will still be some amount of voluntarily uninsured people, even when the ACA is fully implemented.

    That said, Judge Hudson and Judge Vinson (and, implicitly, the plaintiffs bringing the lawsuits to them) have accepted that the regulation of insurance markets in the ACA is constitutional under the Commerce Clause. The mandate was included to make those (other) activities effective, i.e. head off the opportunity for adverse selection that they enable. Here's Antonin Scalia's summation of where the N&P Clause currently stands in relation to Commerce Clause powers:

    As the Court put it in Wrightwood Dairy, where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, “it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.” 315 U.S., at 118—119. [...]

    Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce.​

    The individual mandate may well fit the bill here.
     
  21. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Again, power to regulate the insurance industry doesn't translate to power to regulate people and I'm pretty sure the courts will see a large fine for not doing something as FORCE.

    Will they allow it is the question.

    Arthur
     
  22. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    And yet you haven't given one reason why I shouldn't rely on the Supreme Court to make better decisions than you over the constitutionality of legislation.

    Where again did you get your law degree?

    Arthur
     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    How is that my problem Arthur? Your problem is you cannot make a cogent case that supports your position. That is not my problem. So you have to rely on the partisans in the supreme court who take money from the anti-healthcare reform people in order to effect your will. I have given you many reasons supported with fact and evidence as to why the individual mandate is constitutional. And you have failed to refute it.
     

Share This Page