IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@georgeob1,

Is this an argument analogous to United States v Lopez? Made perfect sense in that case.

@High Seas,

Yes. There was an interesting op-ed in the WSJ on Saturday that addressed exactly this point and this case. The key finding in this and other cases is that the Federal action in question goes beyond what is required under the ICC clause. Additional issues surround the question of selective Federal fines/fees/taxes on those who choose not to purchase health insurance. The Supreme court has separately found that such selective fines/fees/taxes themselves exceed the limitations of power under the basic terms of the constitution.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Whatever the Administration chooses - deceptively - to call it, the thing, if enacted, will very likely be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court. Selective "taxes" such as this one violate fairly well-established constitutional provisions and recent court precedents.

Are you taking into account President Obama's stated intention to make appointments to the Supreme Court based on pragmatism and empathy? One such appointment has already been confirmed.

It is amusing to watch the administration's squirming to avoid offending its protected constituents while taxing its foes. Labor unions are indignant that their no limit, no deductable, no copay health insurance schemes for workers and retirees will be "taxed" along with the "cadillac" plans of evil business executives. The Administration is now scrambling to find a way to exempt their friends from their own policies.
[/quote]

I wonder at the logic of taxing those "cadillac" plans. The price is determined by the insurance companies with a profit motive. They are paid for by individuals and companies who want the coverage. I'm wondering what else is going to be taxed for the apparent reason that "some people just have too much money."

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I'll look for it, thanks, sounds interesting.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

But all workers pay social security and FICA taxes; these are federal mandates that everybody must comply with.

When most people purchase health insurance, it's either through their employment and/or private insurance. They end up paying for all those folks who don't have health insurance, because all hospitals (federal mandate) requires them to treat everybody who shows up in their emergency room. How is that fair? If that exceeds the powers of the federal government, why hasn't it been overturned under any government - republican or democratic?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Well, then I guess either Obama will keep that part in and take it all the way to court or take it out if it turns out to be unconstitutional. As long as they get a health reform bill passed with a public option, of which most of the public wants, then I will be happy.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

But all workers pay social security and FICA taxes; these are federal mandates that everybody must comply with.

The issue here is the selective nature of the penalties provided under the draft Senate legislation for folks who chose not to purchase health insurance. FICA and Income taxes apply to everyone who is employed. The taxes/fees in question apply only to people who make certain choices. What if the the government added a special income tax on the employees of (say) Fox news? That would involve the imposition of punishment without due process. That is the issue here.

cicerone imposter wrote:

When most people purchase health insurance, it's either through their employment and/or private insurance. They end up paying for all those folks who don't have health insurance, because all hospitals (federal mandate) requires them to treat everybody who shows up in their emergency room. How is that fair? If that exceeds the powers of the federal government, why hasn't it been overturned under any government - republican or democratic?

A far simpler, and much more direct, remedy would be to either remove the Federal mandate requiring hospitals to provide care for those who can't pay or to accompany the mandate with Federal payment.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

A far simpler, and much more direct, remedy would be to either remove the Federal mandate requiring hospitals to provide care for those who can't pay or to accompany the mandate with Federal payment.

I was under the impression that we already do this -- federal payment, that is.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

They do, but it's grossly under-funded.

1 Reply

Here's the prez explaining his health care plan, in 4 minutes -

People who say that they don't know what the plan is - please watch before bitching again.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

They do, but it's grossly under-funded.

And a good reason for anyone considering a single payer health care system to suspect the government will repeat the same venal compromises in any program with even higher financial stakes.

The Federal government is particularly in the habit of mandating actions for others, apparently motivated by the desire of elected congressment to curry favor with various interest groups, but then fail to fund them at anywhere near le level required to carry out their promises. We should be very wary of extending the reach of such an irresponsible group into new areas of our lives.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Here's the prez explaining his health care plan, in 4 minutes -

People who say that they don't know what the plan is - please watch before bitching again.

Cycloptichorn

Apparently Cyclo believes anything referencable on the web constitutes a proof or, in the case at hand, a coherent specific description.

The problem is that we all heard the Prez' speech, but we don't really know what he means. He is a master of the careful (and often deceptive) choice of words and deliberately vague assurances - in some cases in defiance of common sense. His problem is that increasingly people don't believe him.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

The issue here is the selective nature of the penalties provided under the draft Senate legislation for folks who chose not to purchase health insurance . . . That would involve the imposition of punishment without due process. That is the issue here.

Are you discussing procedural due process or substantive due process?

With respect to procedural due process, if the fine for a person's failure to purchase health insurance is allowed by a statutory provision that was duly enacted by Congress, then that counts as "due process" of law. If you are attacking the substance of the law rather than the procedure under which it was enacted, how do you logically come to the conclusion that the fine is punitive rather than remedial? The provision does not make it a criminal offense for any individual to fail to purchase insurance. Thus, it is not a penal provision. Rather, it is a remedial provision.

Perhaps you should review the following concepts:

procedural due process
substantive due process
punitive measure
remedial measure

Although fining people for their failure to purchase health insurance might be unconstitutional -- and that subject is worthy of discussion -- I believe you are traveling the wrong path when you allege that the fine constitutes punishment without due process. You are simply stating a conclusion without providing any support for your conclusion.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Here's the prez explaining his health care plan, in 4 minutes -

People who say that they don't know what the plan is - please watch before bitching again.

Cycloptichorn

Apparently Cyclo believes anything referencable on the web constitutes a proof or, in the case at hand, a coherent specific description.

The problem is that we all heard the Prez' speech, but we don't really know what he means. He is a master of the careful (and often deceptive) choice of words and deliberately vague assurances - in some cases in defiance of common sense. His problem is that increasingly people don't believe him.

I don't think that polling evidence shows that increasing numbers of people don't believe him; I do believe, however, that you increasingly believe that others don't believe him, based on selective viewing of the evidence available. So you were almost right.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra, Good points; punitive and remedial must be clarified before calling it unconstitutional. I'm not sure how it can be called punitive because any fine imposed will not be a "punishment." per se. It is a fee being imposed on those who fail to contribute their fair share into health insurance premiums that everyone is expected to pay into. It's more like a remedy for those who refuse to get health insurance, because it's almost certain that they will use the health care services.

If universal health care reduces the use of emergency rooms, it will translate into millions (maybe billions) of dollars in savings that can be used more efficiently in other ways.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You may, or may not be right about the virtues of universal health care. I can't help the first you insisted that the tax was a fine, not a tax. Now, "fine" has morphed into "fee".

Please, if you want a tax to cover this grandiose scheme, just admit it's a tax and go on from there.

0 Replies

Linked you will find a copy of a mailer the NSRC has sent out, chock-full of lies, deceptions, and falsehoods designed to scare people - along with fundraising requests.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/senate-gop-mailer-suggest_n_293332.html

Specifically, the questionnaire suggests that Obama and the Dems plan on discriminating based on one's race, when it comes to access to health care.

It's difficult to buy the prospect, that the Republican party does not regularly engage in race-baiting and racially divisive speech and lies, when their leaders (in this case, Cornyn) continue to engage in these behaviors themselves and fail to admonish those of their own party who do so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

You are seriously quibbling, and you know it. Still, if you want to call it something other than a tax, go ahead. It is a fee levied against everyone who can't afford health insurance. Since it is primarily levied against the poor, you may call it a fee.

A fee for buying something they don't think is worth the cost. What a marketing plan.

It's a tax

I understand that the proposed legislation includes a provision that makes it mandatory for all citizens and LEGAL immigrants to have health insurance. Due to protests by conservatives (who know not what they do), this federal mandate will not apply to illegal immigrants. A statutory FINE is imposed on those persons who do not purchase health insurance. The FINE is not levied against the poor because the poor are entitled to refundable tax credits that will be sent directly to a federal exchange health insurance company (individually chosen by the insured) to cover their premiums. The FINE applies to those people who can afford health insurance (based upon their income) but fail to obtain insurance. It is not a TAX.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Deb, you forget that words mean whatever Conservatives want them to mean, at the most convenient times.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Whatever the Administration chooses - deceptively - to call it, the thing, if enacted, will very likely be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court. Selective "taxes" such as this one violate fairly well-established constitutional provisions and recent court precedents.

You are stating a conclusion without any support. Please identify the constitutional provisions and recent court precedents that support your position. Please state your reasons for concluding that these constitutional provisions and court precedents render the remedial FINE imposed by Congress on those who do not purchase health insurance unconstitutional.

Quote:

If the government can tax or impose fees or penalties based on such elements of personal choice, then there is no limit on its ability to selectively take people's property.

Your intermingling of legal concepts makes your statements irrational.

Are you talking about the TAKINGS clause of the federal constitution concerning property or are you talking about the deprivation of LIBERTY (e.g., personal choice) under the federal due process clause? You must clearly identify your argument and then support it.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know