State rights..

[tony]

I know we're not lawyers here but what are the legal ramifications for a federal mandate on health insurance? Use your brain and not your party affiliations, I'm asking for discussion and not for knowledge, I've got a good understanding of the arguments.

[tony]

Okay then, I guess I'll start this off. When Obama signs the legislation today Attorney Generals from 12 states will be filing lawsuits. Their argument will be that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional, two states have already passed legislation opting their citizens out of the healthcare plan.

My question is, then what is the difference with Medicare of Social Security in terms of mandates? That question alone is why I think the right will hurt their selves more than help, the rebuttal to that question is that Medicare and Social Security are payroll taxes, so if that is the case they push the legislation toward the structure of a single payer system. It's a catch 22 for the right, either accept the legislation as it is or justify the means for a single payer system. I said it before, the current administration and nobody that makes it to executive office is as dumb as they look, this is all planned out.

The other question is if states can opt out of federal mandates then why not exempt my state from the draft or the IRS?

[David88vert]

The states can sue - but it will be tried in a federal court. Who do you think that appointed judges will side with? The states are wasting time and money on a long-shot.
The reality is that Obama knows the states cannot afford this, and will be forced to a single-payer system.

[alpine_aw11]

I was thinking of this when I was reading up on the passed version of the bill. What happened to the whole public option thing? That would be perfectly legal and comply with states rights, but the 2000 pages of used toilet paper the new bill consists of doesn't at all imo. I really don't get how the government can get away with this stuff anymore...

[tony]

Public option was thrown out, I think the current bill lays the groundwork for it though.

[alpine_aw11]

The public option was the only thing I at least somewhat agreed with when the whole healthcare reform thing started. So basically they used a shittier version to lay the groundwork for the only good idea they had? Oh yea that makes sense.

[BanginJimmy]

The public option was the only thing I at least somewhat agreed with when the whole healthcare reform thing started. So basically they used a shittier version to lay the groundwork for the only good idea they had? Oh yea that makes sense.

When you start with something flawed beyond repair, then you use bribes to push it through, what do you really expect? Hell, this bill completely ignores ANYTHING that may bring down costs and instead substituted a bunch of things that will drive costs UP.



As for the question, I cannot understand how anyone could believe that a federal mandate to buy a private corporation's product is Constitutional. You cannot be denied life, LIBERTY, or persuit of happiness without due process of the law. Liberty is also the freedom of choice and this bill eliminates that freedom. This mandate is exactly the same as a federal mandate that every American own at least 1 American made vehicle. If you cant afford one, then the govt can just give you one. Hell, that program would probably be cheaper and be more effective than this bill.


As far as SS and Medicare go, those were SUPPOSED to be placed into a protected fund to be used by everyone when they become eligible. That is one of the reasons the payments are capped at, I believe, 106K in gross earned income. With this bill, the fines are going to go into the general fund.

[Vteckidd]

IMO

1) The states will not win as the constitution gives the Fed govt broad powers to TAX, which is why this is being run through the IRS. The states only leg to stand on is this forces people to buy a service or pay a FINE, which would be unconstitutional. But by the Feds running it through the IRS they will say its a TAX, which is perfectly legal. Its a good show, but it wont work IMO.

2) Obama and the left realize they couldnt go to a single payer or a public option over night. There way to GRADUALLY do this is to takeover the insurance companies which will become proxies for the govt and ultimately assimilated into the govt, if it ever gets that far. Thats why everyone finally went along i think Obama convinced them that PUBLIC OPTION through takeover is the best way to achieve their ultimate goal.

3) States rights are to challenge any rule they find unconstitutional

Like i said before this will probably cause the biggest tear between States and Feds since the Civil War IMO. Its just getting started.

[BanginJimmy]

I had a long response typed up and hit the wrong damn button and lost it

1) The states will not win as the constitution gives the Fed govt broad powers to TAX, which is why this is being run through the IRS. The states only leg to stand on is this forces people to buy a service or pay a FINE, which would be unconstitutional. But by the Feds running it through the IRS they will say its a TAX, which is perfectly legal. Its a good show, but it wont work IMO.

The isnt so much the fine, as the reason for the fine that is under attack. I find it very disturbing that our govt thinks it can force us to buy a product from a private corporation. This isnt at all like car insurance either like some people are comparing it to. Car insurance is a condition that has to be met to be eligible to partake in a privilege. This law doesnt mandate a service as a condition of anything more than being American.

Like i said before this will probably cause the biggest tear between States and Feds since the Civil War IMO. Its just getting started.

The rift has been there for quite a few years already, but until health care, the rift was from array of different issues individual to each state. This bill is a galvanizing issue that has brought at least 3/4 of the states together in some degree. Too bad the states cannot force a Constitutional Amendment on Congress. If they could, I believe that this bill would already be facing it.

[preferredduck]

states and people have more rights than we think but when it goes to a FED court with a judge on payroll the outcome can be bad for us. the states are basically a nation inside a nation and if each state has different laws then they are seperate from each other and can be seperate from the FED govt but we will see what happens.

[BanginJimmy]

Obama has already pissed off the supreme court though, specifically the 5 that voted against McCain-Feingold regulations. I would not put it past one or two of those judges to vote against ObamaCare on a coin flip or partisan issue.

[SlowEG9]

Obama has already pissed off the supreme court though, specifically the 5 that voted against McCain-Feingold regulations. I would not put it past one or two of those judges to vote against ObamaCare on a coin flip or partisan issue.

what were the mccain-feingold regs? im unfamiliar with that.

You guys have some good knowledge of shit. I really wish I myself had kept in tune to the health care situation instead of thinking it was to ridiculous to ever pass

[preferredduck]

Obama has already pissed off the supreme court though, specifically the 5 that voted against McCain-Feingold regulations. I would not put it past one or two of those judges to vote against ObamaCare on a coin flip or partisan issue.

true true that may help our cause. if we are a week in and a lot of companies are already breaking this kind of news, it's either a big scare tactic or our economy is about to really take a nose dive which i have been saying will prob come very soon. this is prob the nail in the coffin for that to happen. buy more ammo. lol

[tony]

what were the mccain-feingold regs? im unfamiliar with that.

You guys have some good knowledge of shit. I really wish I myself had kept in tune to the health care situation instead of thinking it was to ridiculous to ever pass

I believe what he is referring to is Corporations being able to donate to political campaigns, personally I don't see why the Supreme Court would overturn something like that but hey, in my eyes that battle is far from over.

Now about the Supreme Court shooting down this healthcare bill, if they choose to not rule based on law and rather their beef with Obama I'd tend to think that would be abuse of power. If the laws legitimately state that this is unconstitutional then nothing else can be said but the law would change toward a single payer system guaranteed.

[BanginJimmy]

I believe what he is referring to is Corporations being able to donate to political campaigns, personally I don't see why the Supreme Court would overturn something like that but hey, in my eyes that battle is far from over.

You would be correct. The SC said political contributions were a form of free speech and, therefore, protected under the bill of rights.

Now about the Supreme Court shooting down this healthcare bill, if they choose to not rule based on law and rather their beef with Obama I'd tend to think that would be abuse of power.

And I would agree with you 100% but they have done it recently. Remember the SC threw out the death penalty sentence for 2 people in LA, I believe, saying that it was cruel and unusual. The basis for that was strictly ideological though. Here is a link to an article about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/wa...ewanted=1&_r=1

If the laws legitimately state that this is unconstitutional then nothing else can be said but the law would change toward a single payer system guaranteed.

I agree with you that they will try, but I dont think it would make it through the Senate. At least 3 Senators have a serious black eye already from trying to get through the legislation they just passed, I dont think they will be able to push through a FAR more expensive, and FAR more intrusive bill.

[tony]

I agree with you that they will try, but I dont think it would make it through the Senate. At least 3 Senators have a serious black eye already from trying to get through the legislation they just passed, I dont think they will be able to push through a FAR more expensive, and FAR more intrusive bill.

Your whole response I can't really argue or disagree, for me this whole thing is a learning experience in the legislative process.

[BanginJimmy]

This will be a learning experience for everyone considering several of the provisions in this bills have never been tried before. My guess is that it is fast tracked to the SC ad will be on the docket, if not argued by the end of the summer.