Justices signal possible trouble for health insurance mandate

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Justices signal possible trouble for health insurance mandate

The M-A-N-D-A-T-E to have health insurance is the question.

The problem is:

Will that open a door for Congress to impose
other things on people ?

Like "you must buy certain food".

or "you must buy a membership" in something, etc.

The "Government's" position seems to be the Commerce Clause applies here.


Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Washington—
The Supreme Court's conservative justices Tuesday laid into the requirement in the Obama administration's healthcare law that Americans have health insurance, as the court began a much-anticipated second day of arguments on the controversial legislation.

Even before the administration's top lawyer could get three minutes into his defense of the mandate, some justices accused the government of pushing for excessive authority to require Americans to buy anything.

"Are there any limits," asked Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of three conservative justices whose votes are seen as crucial to the fate of the unprecedented insurance mandate.



Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that the government might require Americans to buy cellphones to be ready for emergencies. And Justice Antonin Scalia asked if the government might require Americans to buy broccoli or automobiles.

"If the government can do this, what else can it ... do?” Scalia asked.

The tough questioning of the administration's lawyer is no sure sign of how the justices will rule when they hand down their decision in the case, Department of Health and Human Services, et al., vs. State of Florida, et al., likely in June.


L.A. Times Article



But Tuesday’s arguments may signal trouble for the mandate, widely seen as a cornerstone of the law's program for achieving universal healthcare coverage for the first time in the nation’s history.




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


It isn't unusual for the Justices to interrupt the proceedings with questions, but they bring up really really good points.
If they can require us all to do something like multiple things set out in this law, then they can also require us to do all sorts of things. Not even specifics necessarily, but something like....possibly creating a new law in the future requiring everyone in the US to purchase a membership to an athletic club or gym membership.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Liberal jurists in lockstep, up to Conservatives to interpret the Constitution and save the day!



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Many other countries have mandated health insurance.

We have it here in British Columbia, Canada. If you can't afford it, it is subsidized by the Government.

Everyone on social assistance gets free health care.

Basically, it helps the poorest members of our society have free health care, the rest of us pay about $65 a month. It covers basic hospital stays, some major surgeries, most minor surgeries.

People in BC don't end up having to sell their homes because they got sick.

Why do Americans think this is such a bad idea? Apart from Car Insurance (if you have a car) and Health Insurance, we don't get told that we have to join anything else, and we've had this for decades.

I was chatting with a stewardess on a quiet flight from the USA lately, and she was STUNNED at how much coverage we had and how little we pay.
edit on 27-3-2012 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
It is so unconstitutional to force someone to buy insurance that I cannot even begin to imagine. Who benefits from this mandatory system? The health insurance companies and pharmaceutical industries. I am a health care worker, but never in the hospital is anyone denied care in the USA even if they have no insurance. I was in the same boat, I was not denied care!! I am sick and disgusted at corporations dictating our lives.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
I am a health care worker, but never in the hospital is anyone denied care in the USA even if they have no insurance. I was in the same boat, I was not denied care!!


Sure they are... If your life is not immediately in danger you are on your own.

Terminal conditions, terminal conditions



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Good, its looking much like this will get thrown out...
as it should be.

Constitutionally speaking

"If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government's defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., along with him. But if he does not, the mandate is gone. maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Many other countries have mandated health insurance.

We have it here in British Columbia, Canada. If you can't afford it, it is subsidized by the Government.

Everyone on social assistance gets free health care.

Basically, it helps the poorest members of our society have free health care, the rest of us pay about $65 a month. It covers basic hospital stays, some major surgeries, most minor surgeries.

People in BC don't end up having to sell their homes because they got sick.

Why do Americans think this is such a bad idea? Apart from Car Insurance (if you have a car) and Health Insurance, we don't get told that we have to join anything else, and we've had this for decades.

I was chatting with a stewardess on a quiet flight from the USA lately, and she was STUNNED at how much coverage we had and how little we pay.
edit on 27-3-2012 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)

Right, but the problem lies in that if you dont carry it. Then you pay a penalty. Thats the problem too. not just "forcing" someone to do something. What if that person is jobless? What if he or she cannot afford it on their budget alone? How can you penalize someone that cant afford the insurance in the first place????? You might as well penalize those that cant get a job and are trying...................



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Because in the very beginning of this whole issue the Republicans openly stated that this was the issue they were going to use to bring down the Obama whitehouse and reclaim the throne for themselves. There are many thorny issues around this whole debate --- apart from the intentional hysteria and propaganda like 'death panels'. But what no one wants to talk about, the real elephant in the room, is that the healthcare system in this country is on the verge of collapse. Increasing numbers of people are uninsured and are looking to hospital ER's and clinics for basic medical care. Care for which they are unable to pay. Hospitals are running deeper and deeper in the red.

There are all sorts of contributors to this mess --- legal liabilities, malpractice insurance, corruption and fraud, etc. But at the end of the day hospitals WILL close. MD's are opting out of practice because they simply can't afford it. Some specialties are being routed. We've got serious problems but (as usual) no one wants to deal with them. Just wrap them up in politics and make believe they go away. That is until you show up at the ER in the middle of the night with your sick kid and the lights are out.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


The "death panel" may be this:

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

It looks like a "grading" system exists !!


Under ObamaCare, a single committee—the United States Preventative Services Task Force—is empowered to evaluate preventive health services and decide which will be covered by health-insurance plans.


Unless this is all mis-information ?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Hi Babybunnies,

I’ll try and provide one perspective on this charged issue. Please keep in mind the following perspectives are my own and not intended to represent the viewpoints of others.

I think it’s important to recognize that British Columbia’s population is ~ 1.4% of that of the United States (actual population numbers acquired from Wikipedia sources). By providing this ratio I am suggesting that B.C.’s healthcare bureaucracy is much more manageable than would be possible in the United States. Moreover, while the new U.S. healthcare law imposes equality there’s no certainty among its legislators and supporters that it will provide efficiency and remain fixed within its projected cost constraints. It probably will not, and off the top of my head increases can be paid for in one of three ways: 1) increases in premium; 2) deficit without tears by further borrowing; 3) tariffs. I “guess” the U.S. fed government could impose price ceiling/floors in an attempt to remain within specified cost parameters, but how they influence other markets that provide healthcare services and products to play along (and not just U.S. companies, but foreign companies as well) is probably something like the stories we may read in ATS’ Skunk Works section.

Why do I think universal healthcare is a bad idea in the United States? The linked article begins to suggest why: “The architects of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act included an insurance requirement after years of experience with insurance markets suggested that it is very difficult to guarantee health insurance to everyone, including people with preexisting medical conditions, without a way to induce younger, healthier people to get covered. That offsets the cost of insuring older, sicker ones.” I’ve suspected from the beginning that the underlying purpose for universal healthcare was to cover down on future healthcare expenses that the U.S. fed government is unwilling to budget for in fiscal spending. In effect universal healthcare maintains the status quo in U.S. governmental spending by imposing the commerce clause into each U.S. citizens’ wallet. Furthermore, unlike car insurance (I may choose not to drive) there is but one choice & it’s not a choice I may freely make. As it stands now there are choices which U.S. citizens may not make with respect to the fruits of their labor, and universal healthcare imposes another limit. Within the span of 100 years there are two laws which dampened property rights in the United States: 1) 16th amendment; 2) universal healthcare. I wonder what property rights in the United States will reflect in 300 years? Hard to say, but what I witness now troubles me.

I lack bleeding heart compassion, but that doesn’t mean I lack compassion. We’ve a healthcare entitlement program in place now that’s not perfect, but by governmental standards it gets the job done. If there is to be universal healthcare then my expectation is that the U.S. fed gov’t fiscally budget for it thru cuts rather than impose a unilateral choice for me (too many betrayls occurred when this was voted for). The choice made now is nothing more than an appendix (i.e. addition) to increased spending. It’s what I refer to as a choice for the easy wrong versus the hard right in U.S. politics. Go figure.

Take it easy.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by jtma508
 


The "death panel" may be this:

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

It looks like a "grading" system exists !!


Under ObamaCare, a single committee—the United States Preventative Services Task Force—is empowered to evaluate preventive health services and decide which will be covered by health-insurance plans.


Unless this is all mis-information ?




exactly, you know, you're 65 you don't really need that heart transplant now GTFO! and stay out!


our entire govt. is a joke why should their health care package be any different.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
It's ludicrous that this is even open for debate. it just shows the ignorance and stupidity of the American sheeple. No one is denied needed medical treatment in America that is the big lie. The idea the government much less anyone else can force people to buy a product or service is decidedly un-American. Americans need to draw a line in the sand or this will continue to just get worse.
edit on 27-3-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

In 2008, then presidential candidate Barack Obama was opposed to the individual mandate. He stated the following in a Feb. 28, 2008 interview on the Ellen DeGeneres show about his divergent views with Hillary Clinton:

"Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it. So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t."


As you can see, Obama really never wanted a Mandate...he was always for public option....but the votes weren't t here in the Senate to do it....so he ultimately passed REPUBLICAN HEALTHCARE to get more people paying into the system and to try to get a hold of costs.

Here is the history of Federal Mandate Legislation:


1. Nov. 20, 1993
(date introduced) Consumer Choice Health Security Act (SB 1743) (624 KB) Sponsored by Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) & 24 Republican cosponsors

"Subtitle C: Employer Provisions - Requires employers to: (1) withhold health insurance premiums from employee wages and remit such premiums to the employee's chosen insurer; and (2) notify employees of their right to claim an advance refundable tax credit for such premiums."

2. Nov. 23, 1993
(date introduced) Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act (SB 1770) (1.6 MB) Sponsored by Senator John H. Chafee (R-RI) & 20 cosponsors (2-D, 18-R)

"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone."
3. Jan. 18, 2007
(date introduced) Healthy Americans Act (SB 334) (427 KB) Sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) & 17 cosponsors (7-D, 1-I, 9-R)

"Healthy Americans Act - Requires each adult individual to have the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI). Makes individuals who are not enrolled in another specified health plan and who are not opposed to coverage for religious reasons responsible for enrolling themselves and their dependent children in a HAPI plan offered through their state of residence. Sets forth penalties for failure to enroll."
4. Feb. 5, 2009
(date introduced) Healthy Americans Act (SB 391) (394 KB) Sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) & 14 cosponsors (8-D, 1-I, 5-R)

"Healthy Americans Act - Requires each adult individual to have the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI), which is: (1) a plan offered by a state; or (2) an employer-sponsored health coverage plan. Makes individuals who are not enrolled in another specified health plan and who are not opposed to coverage for religious reasons responsible for enrolling themselves and their dependent children in a HAPI plan offered through their state of residence. Sets forth penalties for failure to enroll."
5. Dec. 24, 2009
(date passed) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590) (2.2 MB) No sponsors. Bill re-written by Senate Democrats. No Republican Senator voted for the bill. Read more.

"Subtitle F: Shared Responsibility for Health Care - Part I: Individual Responsibility - (Sec. 1501, as modified by section 10106) Requires individuals to maintain minimal essential health care coverage beginning in 2014. Imposes a penalty for failure to maintain such coverage beginning in 2014, except for certain low-income individuals who cannot afford coverage, members of Indian tribes, and individuals who suffer hardship. Exempts from the coverage requirement individuals who object to health care coverage on religious grounds, individuals not lawfully present in the United States, and individuals who are incarcerated."


You can find the links to the actual bills at this link...along with the Obama quote above.
healthcarereform.procon.org...

There is the history of the mandate....it came from the GOP. Democrats passed Republican healthcare....they all voted against their own idea.

So folks....if this does get destroyed by the Supreme court...WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO????

Seriously, what great plan do you guys have other than to deny people healthcare? Lose your job and your insurance....suddenly have a heart attack? Do you believe we should tell these people to go F themselves and suffer...die???



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
Seriously, what great plan do you guys have other than to deny people healthcare? Lose your job and your insurance....suddenly have a heart attack? Do you believe we should tell these people to go F themselves and suffer...die???


And to you, I say:

Do you believe we should tell our republic to go F itself and let the Constitution die?
edit on 27-3-2012 by de Thor because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by de Thor
 





And to you, I say: Do you believe we should tell our republic to go F itself and let the Constitution die?


This republic will die if we don't get healthcare costs under control. Eventually costs will balloon so high that no one will be able to afford insurance.....it will kill the economy.....people will no longer to be able to get any kind of health care at all.
edit on 27-3-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by de Thor
 





And to you, I say: Do you believe we should tell our republic to go F itself and let the Constitution die?


This republic will die if we don't get healthcare costs under control.


Half of GDP will be absorbed by healthcare by 2030



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
It's ludicrous that this is even open for debate. it jut shows the ignorance and stupidity of the American sheeple. No one is denied medical treatment in America that is the big lie.


So a person with prostate cancer is cool


There is a point where dumbing down gets us into the dumb realm.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by de Thor
 





And to you, I say: Do you believe we should tell our republic to go F itself and let the Constitution die?


This republic will die if we don't get healthcare costs under control.


I agree, healthcare costs are outrageous right now. But I state emphatically, this is not the correct course!

This is a comment written by some fellow named George Zimmerman, Jr. on this Wall Street Journal article. He discusses the far reaching implications this Supreme Court decision will have:


If the Mandate is found constitutional, presumably because it is found that the Interstate Commerce clause was intended to permit such laws, then the Constitution will be meaningless, as the fundamental division between the States and the Federal Government will be irretrievably lost.

I believe the Court will probably decide that the Mandate is NOT legal and the decision will, effectively, stand for the proposition that the Commerce Clause is NOT a General Tool Kit for the Congress to circumvent the intent of the Constitution in terms of the Federal Government being a government of limited, enumerated powers.

Accordingly, this will be the start of the unwinding of a long line of cases that (in my opinion) arrived at conclusions that consistently expanded the role of the Federal Government on the grounds that under the Commerce Clause it was intended. That is patently incorrect. The legislative history on the subject is clear. The decisions to expand were contorted and this Court is likely to decide that stare decisis notwithstanding, there must be a limit to the extension of erroneous decisions. For the identical reasons that Brown v. Board of Education correctly overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

Today was likely a triumph for American constitutional representative democracy over the overreach of unprincipled progressivism. Do we need to improve the way health care is delivered in America? Of course we do. 'ObamaCare' was neither the substantive answer nor the procedural manner of financing. If this law was allowed to stand, there would be no limit to the mischief that would follow. The attitude was breathtaking. Remember Ms. Pelosi asking, rhetorically, 'are you kidding?' in response to the question 'is the law constitutional?' Ms. Pelosi had never given the question a second thought. She simply assumed she was the Speaker of the House and she was above such nonsense.


This case is about far more than healthcare. Unfortunately, most people don't realize this.
edit on 27-3-2012 by de Thor because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by de Thor
 





I agree, healthcare costs are outrageous right now. But I state emphatically, this is not the correct course!


Then name the course. I know the arguments, but i have yet to see anyone with any other viable solution other to deny people healthcare (which is a horrible thought in itself).





top topics
 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join