IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Cycloptichorn wrote:

High Seas wrote:

It's not minutiae, it goes to the heart of the constitutionality argument - read Debra's post and my reply to see why, and read George OB's reasons for also believing that the health care insurance forced mandate is unconstitutional.

George wrote:...

You're looking at a different post, Cycl, George OB's constitutional objection is a couple of pages back: http://able2know.org/topic/89938-226#post-3764810

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Well I looked it up, Section Eight is here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Quote:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I don't know if that's the constitutional argument, but I do know medical insurance is regulated by the several states. If all those "duties, imposts, and excises" must be uniform, stands to reason people can't be forced to pay for whatever is available in their own state at 50 different prices - otherwise the commerce clause is meaningless. However I'm waiting for some legal eagle to clarify that bit - my objection to Obamacare's nontax tax is purely financial.

It still doesn't compute - in order to comply with this new law (assuming it passes, which is doubtful) the people of the various states will have to pay vastly different amounts for the identical service. In addition to the 50 state insurance regulators there's all kinds of federal laws constraining insurers to e.g. charge identical premia to blacks and whites for the same medical coverage even though the 2 groups' risk profiles differ substantially. That creates vast distortions in actuarial calculations, as you can imagine. Unless a single unified federal health insurance regulator is legislated I don't see how this bill complies with the commerce clause - in its financial effects at least.

Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate "regulatory" taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise 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 has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care.

I finally tracked down the article George OB cited as his backup info on the unconstitutionality of the proposed mandate - your answer is here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html

Quote:

Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate "regulatory" taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise 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 has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care.

Debra Law wrote:

High Seas wrote:

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

..........Congress, however, is not relying on the commerce clause. It's relying on the tax and spending for the general welfare clause to enact healthcare reform legislation. .....

Thank you, but as your very reference indicates >

Quote:

Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare.' Constitution, art. 1, 8; ...

> Congress may SPEND money. It's a spending clause, not, as you say, a "tax and spending" clause. And as Cardozo makes it clear, concepts of whose welfare, what for, and so on, vary greatly over time. Generally I'm with that appeals court, the dissenting justices, and with Madison - though that issue has long been settled. In the issue facing us now the fact remains the welfare clause only addresses spending, not additional taxing.

For years I've been writing that those gigantic entitlement programs will bankrupt the nation unless we take prompt action. The absolutely last thing we need to do is create yet another one. As to the tax power of congress, of course it exists, but not in the article of the constitution cited in the court decision we're discussing - see link kindly posted by Debra.

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Republicans ask U.S. Senate to slow down on healthcare
By John Whitesides and Donna Smith John Whitesides And Donna Smith 58 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) " The Senate Finance Committee made unsteady progress on Wednesday on a broad healthcare overhaul bill, working slowly through a crush of amendments as lawmakers battled over its cost and size.

Lawmakers resumed debate on Chairman Max Baucus's healthcare reform proposal, with Republicans repeatedly demanding more information on costs and calling for the committee to slow down its deliberations.