Unconstitutional

[Jeffy]

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

A U.S. district judge ruled Monday that the health care law unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause.

Judge Roger Vinson said as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be thrown out.

"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here," Vinson wrote.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void," he wrote.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/

[pike]

Health care bill sinking faster than KSU q@s bball

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Please let them start over and do it right.

[Stupid Fitz]

Please let them start over and do it right.

Not happening, then they would have to admit they were dumbasses and it was a crap plan from the start.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Please let them start over and do it right.

What would you like to see reformed?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Please let them start over and do it right.

What would you like to see reformed?

I would like to see 2 things done immediately:

Limits on malpractice lawsuits.

Interstate medical insurance sales.

This should make insurance much more affordable.

[pike]

Please let them start over and do it right.

What would you like to see reformed?

I would like to see 2 things done immediately:

Limits on malpractice lawsuits.

Interstate medical insurance sales.

This should make insurance much more affordable.

This

[Jeffy]

Please let them start over and do it right.

What would you like to see reformed?

I would like to see 2 things done immediately:

Limits on malpractice lawsuits.

Interstate medical insurance sales.

This should make insurance much more affordable.

This

Yup.  Immediately creates increased competition and lower prices.

Along with that, separating insurance from company benefits, so that the policy is portable between jobs.  This would keep people from being tied to a job just because of the insurance and eliminate much of the "pre-existing condition" problem.  Companies could offer something like an insurance voucher that could be used by the employee to purchase insurance.

[Panjandrum]

Please let them start over and do it right.

What would you like to see reformed?

I would like to see 2 things done immediately:

Limits on malpractice lawsuits.

Interstate medical insurance sales.

This should make insurance much more affordable.

This

Yup.  Immediately creates increased competition and lower prices.

Along with that, separating insurance from company benefits, so that the policy is portable between jobs.  This would keep people from being tied to a job just because of the insurance and eliminate much of the "pre-existing condition" problem.  Companies could offer something like an insurance voucher that could be used by the employee to purchase insurance.

A couple of things...

I need someone to explain to me how mandating people have health insurance is different than mandating people have car insurance.  The premise of both is simple; if you don't have it, and you require it's services, you're costing all of us because your uncovered ass is causing all of our premiums to go up.  Case in point: Hospitals are required, by law, to treat everyone that comes into the ED.  So, if you don't have health insurance, and you don't have a doctor, and you go to the ED, the hospital eats that.  Therefore, they raise their prices, and the insurance company has to pay more, which in turn causes your rates to go up.  It's pretty simple economics.  Uninsured drivers cause the same problem, so the government mandated people have auto insurance.  I don't see any courts overturning that, but of course, apparently, that isn't unconstitutional Socialism Commie Nazism for people who want to defile the baby Jesus.

Second, I believe in malpractice reform.  Duh.  Anyone with a brain would.  However, do the folks in this thread believe we should scrap the mandates for preexisting conditions and lifetime limits for insurance?  Just wondering.

[Jeffy]

Please let them start over and do it right.

What would you like to see reformed?

I would like to see 2 things done immediately:

Limits on malpractice lawsuits.

Interstate medical insurance sales.

This should make insurance much more affordable.

This

Yup.  Immediately creates increased competition and lower prices.

Along with that, separating insurance from company benefits, so that the policy is portable between jobs.  This would keep people from being tied to a job just because of the insurance and eliminate much of the "pre-existing condition" problem.  Companies could offer something like an insurance voucher that could be used by the employee to purchase insurance.

A couple of things...

I need someone to explain to me how mandating people have health insurance is different than mandating people have car insurance.  The premise of both is simple; if you don't have it, and you require it's services, you're costing all of us because your uncovered ass is causing all of our premiums to go up.  Case in point: Hospitals are required, by law, to treat everyone that comes into the ED.  So, if you don't have health insurance, and you don't have a doctor, and you go to the ED, the hospital eats that.  Therefore, they raise their prices, and the insurance company has to pay more, which in turn causes your rates to go up.  It's pretty simple economics.  Uninsured drivers cause the same problem, so the government mandated people have auto insurance.  I don't see any courts overturning that, but of course, apparently, that isn't unconstitutional Socialism Commie Nazism for people who want to defile the baby Jesus.

Second, I believe in malpractice reform.  Duh.  Anyone with a brain would.  However, do the folks in this thread believe we should scrap the mandates for preexisting conditions and lifetime limits for insurance?  Just wondering.

Nobody forces you to own a car.  It is a privilege.  If you choose to have a car, then there is a minimum amount of insurance you must carry.  Many people choose to carry more.  With health insurance, it is essentially "if you choose to be alive," then you have to have insurance.

As the judge's decision says,

 "At issue here, as in the other cases decided so far, is the assertion that the
Commerce Clause can only reach individuals and entities engaged in an “activity”;
and because the plaintiffs maintain that an individual’s failure to purchase health
insurance is, almost by definition, “inactivity,” the individual mandate goes beyond
the Commere Clause and is unconstitutional. The defendants contend that activity
is not required before Congress can exercise its Commerce Clause power, but that,
even if it is required, not having insurance constitutes activity. The defendants also
claim that the individual mandate is sustainable for the “second reason” that it falls
within the Necessary and Proper Clause."
 

[Panjandrum]

Please let them start over and do it right.

What would you like to see reformed?

I would like to see 2 things done immediately:

Limits on malpractice lawsuits.

Interstate medical insurance sales.

This should make insurance much more affordable.

This

Yup.  Immediately creates increased competition and lower prices.

Along with that, separating insurance from company benefits, so that the policy is portable between jobs.  This would keep people from being tied to a job just because of the insurance and eliminate much of the "pre-existing condition" problem.  Companies could offer something like an insurance voucher that could be used by the employee to purchase insurance.

A couple of things...

I need someone to explain to me how mandating people have health insurance is different than mandating people have car insurance.  The premise of both is simple; if you don't have it, and you require it's services, you're costing all of us because your uncovered ass is causing all of our premiums to go up.  Case in point: Hospitals are required, by law, to treat everyone that comes into the ED.  So, if you don't have health insurance, and you don't have a doctor, and you go to the ED, the hospital eats that.  Therefore, they raise their prices, and the insurance company has to pay more, which in turn causes your rates to go up.  It's pretty simple economics.  Uninsured drivers cause the same problem, so the government mandated people have auto insurance.  I don't see any courts overturning that, but of course, apparently, that isn't unconstitutional Socialism Commie Nazism for people who want to defile the baby Jesus.

Second, I believe in malpractice reform.  Duh.  Anyone with a brain would.  However, do the folks in this thread believe we should scrap the mandates for preexisting conditions and lifetime limits for insurance?  Just wondering.

Nobody forces you to own a car.  It is a privilege.  If you choose to have a car, then there is a minimum amount of insurance you must carry.  Many people choose to carry more.  With health insurance, it is essentially "if you choose to be alive," then you have to have insurance.

As the judge's decision says,

 "At issue here, as in the other cases decided so far, is the assertion that the
Commerce Clause can only reach individuals and entities engaged in an “activity”;
and because the plaintiffs maintain that an individual’s failure to purchase health
insurance is, almost by definition, “inactivity,” the individual mandate goes beyond
the Commere Clause and is unconstitutional. The defendants contend that activity
is not required before Congress can exercise its Commerce Clause power, but that,
even if it is required, not having insurance constitutes activity. The defendants also
claim that the individual mandate is sustainable for the “second reason” that it falls
within the Necessary and Proper Clause."
 

It doesn't answer my main assertion which is that the uninsured who do seek treatment end up costing us all more as a result like the uninsured drivers cost us more as a result.  This is the whole point.

If you don't want to buy insurance, and you want to die at home, fine.  Die at home.

However, if you don't want to buy insurance, but you show up to the hospital looking for help that you can't pay for, and the hospital is required, by law, to treat you, well, you're costing all of us.  In that sense, it's even more critical than auto insurance because no one says that if you don't have a car, but you need to go somewhere, a car will be provided for you by law.  And if you hit someone, well, that person and their insurance company is SOL because even though the government mandated a car must be provided for you if you needed it and you asked for one, they didn't require you to have a means to pay for it.

Look, there's a pretty simple solution here.  If people don't want the government to mandate that citizens have health insurance, they should simply say that hospitals can turn you away if you don't have it.  Problem solved.  Right?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Please let them start over and do it right.

What would you like to see reformed?

I would like to see 2 things done immediately:

Limits on malpractice lawsuits.

Interstate medical insurance sales.

This should make insurance much more affordable.

This

Yup.  Immediately creates increased competition and lower prices.

Along with that, separating insurance from company benefits, so that the policy is portable between jobs.  This would keep people from being tied to a job just because of the insurance and eliminate much of the "pre-existing condition" problem.  Companies could offer something like an insurance voucher that could be used by the employee to purchase insurance.

A couple of things...

I need someone to explain to me how mandating people have health insurance is different than mandating people have car insurance.  The premise of both is simple; if you don't have it, and you require it's services, you're costing all of us because your uncovered ass is causing all of our premiums to go up.  Case in point: Hospitals are required, by law, to treat everyone that comes into the ED.  So, if you don't have health insurance, and you don't have a doctor, and you go to the ED, the hospital eats that.  Therefore, they raise their prices, and the insurance company has to pay more, which in turn causes your rates to go up.  It's pretty simple economics.  Uninsured drivers cause the same problem, so the government mandated people have auto insurance.  I don't see any courts overturning that, but of course, apparently, that isn't unconstitutional Socialism Commie Nazism for people who want to defile the baby Jesus.

Second, I believe in malpractice reform.  Duh.  Anyone with a brain would.  However, do the folks in this thread believe we should scrap the mandates for preexisting conditions and lifetime limits for insurance?  Just wondering.

Making insurance affordable means more people have insurance. Eliminates much of the ER expense, except the problem along the border.

Honestly, not knowing the numbers of people that are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions, I don't have an answer, but I'm sure there is a workable solution. Maybe each insurance company would take a portion based on revenues, or a national pool to cover a percentage. I bet if it was debated on the floor of the house, they could come up with something.

[Jeffy]

So how much do you think the added cost of further layers of government would add compared to a couple million uninsureds coming in?

[Panjandrum]

Making insurance affordable means more people have insurance. Eliminates much of the ER expense, except the problem along the border.

Honestly, not knowing the numbers of people that are mensurable due to pre-existing conditions, I don't have an answer, but I'm sure there is a workable solution. Maybe each insurance company would take a portion based on revenues, or a national pool to cover a percentage. I bet if it was debated on the floor of the house, they could come up with something.

But you aren't mandating that they purchase a health care product for a service, by law, that hospitals have to provide for you if you need it.

The flaw in this entire debate, especially from the Republican side, is that the assumption is that if you make health insurance affordable, people would buy it.  You're assuming people are that intelligent and cognizant of how it benefits them, and society, by purchasing health insurance.

Considering how most Americans handle their money, this is a very dangerous assumption.  Especially in the younger demographic.  A lot of them have never seen an ER bill, so they don't realize how quickly that visit goes from $0 to $3000.  Therefore, you're looking at putting younger folks in serious financial trouble if they need to go to the ER, and if you're the kind of person who can't afford even the most basic insurance, you're not going to be able to handle a bill of that magnitude.  And even if the hospitals put you on a payment plan, they will send you to collections if you can't pay.

To say that this isn't a big problem in non-border states is ridiculous.  Go to a county hospital in a major metropolitan area and sit in an ER for a couple of hours (I have.  Many times.).  Then, tell me if a lot of the people who are receiving treatment they can't pay for are undocumented immigrants.

As far as pre-existing conditions are concerned, I don't want the House to debate anything regarding this.  Republicans and Democrats couldn't find the right solution for anything if the correct answer was sitting there, naked, in the middle of the chamber, with a gigantic neon sign over it that said, "Hey, jackasses, I'm right here."  You're better off with a simple mandate that can't be corrupted by loopholes.  Besides, if everyone supposedly has the "right" to healthcare,which is mandated by law already, and we all agree that the more people who have insurance is better for the whole, it's best to make the insurance companies pay for it.  We're all paying for it anyway when the diabetic goes into cardiac arrest and goes to the ER for a long acute care stay that they'll never be able to pay for (since they couldn't get coverage because, hey, who wants to insure someone in their thirties with Type 2 diabetes?), and at least if the person had insurance, the insurance company would be able to work with the hospital to negotiate a lower rate for the stay.

The simplest way to break this problem down is to decide whether or not health care is a "right".  And, depending on how you interpret the Constitution, you'd say that the government mandated that we're all entitled to "Life", hence why a hospital can't turn anyone away if they need it.  So, if we all agree that hospitals shouldn't turn anyone away, regardless of whether or not they can pay for it, and we're all better off, financially, if people pay for it, then somehow, logically, you need to address that gap.  And if the government tries to mandate people buy health insurance to fill that gap so we all benefit as a whole, I don't see how that's unconstitutional since one person's decision NOT to buy health insurance impacts you, me, and every other taxpayer out there.  Especially when the retort to this mandate is to simply lower the cost of insurance so people can buy it.  Well, yeah, that would be great, but even if you do that, there is no guarantee that A) people would buy it because, let's face it, most people aren't blessed with the brains God gave a piss ant, B) if you don't make it illegal to refuse someone based on pre-existing conditions, and C) you eliminate the cap limits that some of the folks with chronic conditions will ultimately encounter due to the cost of treating their illness over the course of many years.

I'm all about ways to reduce the cost of insurance.  I'll listen to all sorts of ideas.  However, I absolutely believe in a mandate for citizens to purchase it.  There is absolutely no harm in telling someone to do something when their inability to do so costs all of us.

[Panjandrum]

So how much do you think the added cost of further layers of government would add compared to a couple million uninsureds coming in?

How much does it cost the government to check your insurance card when you go get your driver's license?

You go to the hospital without insurance, you get a fine.  In fact, you could even make it as simple as adding a mandatory charge for all folks who self-pay without insurance.  That data could be stored and sent the the state with all of the other stuff that hospitals already send.  It really wouldn't be hard at all.

[Dirty Sanchez]

You type a lot (where's that "did not read" thing?), but you are missing a single point which nullifies all your claptrap.


IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Stupid Fitz]

Car insurance comparison is so freaking stupid.  I can't believe people keep bringing it up.  As Dax said, driving is a privilege, and you don't have to drive, so therefore you don't have to buy insurance.  What do you think would happen if the state of NY required all of their citizens to buy car insurance?  There would be a freaking riot in the streets. 

As far as fixing the bill, I like the ideas posted, but would also like all of the crap that has nothing to do with healthcare taken out.  It seems stupid to have to ask for that, but 

Oh, and since we are wishing, I would also like anyone that voted for it and didn't read it, to go to jail.   

[Jeffy]

So how much do you think the added cost of further layers of government would add compared to a couple million uninsureds coming in?

How much does it cost the government to check your insurance card when you go get your driver's license?

You go to the hospital without insurance, you get a fine.  In fact, you could even make it as simple as adding a mandatory charge for all folks who self-pay without insurance.  That data could be stored and sent the the state with all of the other stuff that hospitals already send.  It really wouldn't be hard at all.

So you are saying there are no administrative costs with it at all, both at the hospital and within the government?

A brief thought would be fine, since  what Sanchez said about it being Unconstitutional pretty much sums it up.  If you wish to ignore the Constitution, then you are ignoring the law and all this country was founded on and for which millions have died defending.

[Panjandrum]

So how much do you think the added cost of further layers of government would add compared to a couple million uninsureds coming in?

How much does it cost the government to check your insurance card when you go get your driver's license?

You go to the hospital without insurance, you get a fine.  In fact, you could even make it as simple as adding a mandatory charge for all folks who self-pay without insurance.  That data could be stored and sent the the state with all of the other stuff that hospitals already send.  It really wouldn't be hard at all.

So you are saying there are no administrative costs with it at all, both at the hospital and within the government?

A brief thought would be fine, since  what Sanchez said about it being Unconstitutional pretty much sums it up.  If you wish to ignore the Constitution, then you are ignoring the law and all this country was founded on and for which millions have died defending.

I'm pretty sure that as this goes higher in the court system, it will not be ruled as such.

Just a hunch.

And please, spare me the whole romanticism around the Constitution, people dying for it, etc.  It's a document, it's subjective to interpretation, and the courts (if necessary, the Supreme Court) will ultimately rule on it's validity.

But, hey, we shouldn't let those activist judges determine policy in this country, right?  Right?

As far as administrative costs, as the EMR becomes more a part of this system, it won't be as difficult to do this, and the government has already set that in motion.  You would be shocked at how much a hospital already has to report to your individual states right now.  This would simply be another line item on a claim that's tracked in a system.

[Panjandrum]

You type a lot (where's that "did not read" thing?), but you are missing a single point which nullifies all your claptrap.


IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Yeah...it's all over now that District Court judge in Florida ruled it as such.

It's not going to get appealed.  Yep, it's all over now.

[Panjandrum]

Car insurance comparison is so freaking stupid.  I can't believe people keep bringing it up.  As Dax said, driving is a privilege, and you don't have to drive, so therefore you don't have to buy insurance.  What do you think would happen if the state of NY required all of their citizens to buy car insurance?  There would be a freaking riot in the streets. 

As far as fixing the bill, I like the ideas posted, but would also like all of the crap that has nothing to do with healthcare taken out.  It seems stupid to have to ask for that, but 

Oh, and since we are wishing, I would also like anyone that voted for it and didn't read it, to go to jail.   

If you own a car in the state of New York, you must buy car insurance, at the very least, it must be liability insurance.

Again, my point is simple.  If you can't own a car without some form of insurance in every state of the Union, then you shouldn't be able to use a hospital if you don't have insurance.  Because, ultimately, the point of both is to protect someone else's property, and if you go to the hospital without insurance, and it causes my rates to go up as a result, you're taking away my money due to your irresponsibility (if you can afford it).  If you can't afford it, well, I guess we should just continue to let those people use the ER as their primary care physician.  That's obviously a sustainable policy in the long-term.

[Jeffy]

Car insurance comparison is so freaking stupid.  I can't believe people keep bringing it up.  As Dax said, driving is a privilege, and you don't have to drive, so therefore you don't have to buy insurance.  What do you think would happen if the state of NY required all of their citizens to buy car insurance?  There would be a freaking riot in the streets. 

As far as fixing the bill, I like the ideas posted, but would also like all of the crap that has nothing to do with healthcare taken out.  It seems stupid to have to ask for that, but 

Oh, and since we are wishing, I would also like anyone that voted for it and didn't read it, to go to jail.   

If you own a car in the state of New York, you must buy car insurance, at the very least, it must be liability insurance.

Again, my point is simple.  If you can't own a car without some form of insurance in every state of the Union, then you shouldn't be able to use a hospital if you don't have insurance.  Because, ultimately, the point of both is to protect someone else's property, and if you go to the hospital without insurance, and it causes my rates to go up as a result, you're taking away my money due to your irresponsibility (if you can afford it).  If you can't afford it, well, I guess we should just continue to let those people use the ER as their primary care physician.  That's obviously a sustainable policy in the long-term.

But there are many that choose not to get insurance.  In the interest of fairness, it's not fair to force them to buy insurance.

[Stupid Fitz]

Pretty sure the people that live in Manhattan NY without cars would be pretty pissed if they were forced to purchase auto insurance. Also, that is a state law.

[Panjandrum]

Car insurance comparison is so freaking stupid.  I can't believe people keep bringing it up.  As Dax said, driving is a privilege, and you don't have to drive, so therefore you don't have to buy insurance.  What do you think would happen if the state of NY required all of their citizens to buy car insurance?  There would be a freaking riot in the streets. 

As far as fixing the bill, I like the ideas posted, but would also like all of the crap that has nothing to do with healthcare taken out.  It seems stupid to have to ask for that, but 

Oh, and since we are wishing, I would also like anyone that voted for it and didn't read it, to go to jail.   

If you own a car in the state of New York, you must buy car insurance, at the very least, it must be liability insurance.

Again, my point is simple.  If you can't own a car without some form of insurance in every state of the Union, then you shouldn't be able to use a hospital if you don't have insurance.  Because, ultimately, the point of both is to protect someone else's property, and if you go to the hospital without insurance, and it causes my rates to go up as a result, you're taking away my money due to your irresponsibility (if you can afford it).  If you can't afford it, well, I guess we should just continue to let those people use the ER as their primary care physician.  That's obviously a sustainable policy in the long-term.

But there are many that choose not to get insurance.  In the interest of fairness, it's not fair to force them to buy insurance.

Then they shouldn't have the privilege of going to a hospital since their irresponsibility is costing us all money.

This isn't rocket science.  If it's not "fair" for them to not buy insurance (when they can afford it), it's not "fair" to me to see my rates rise as a result.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Pretty sure the people that live in Manhattan NY without cars would be pretty pissed if they were forced to purchase auto insurance. Also, that is a state law.

State laws have to be constitutional, just like Federal laws. You are right, though. I don't agree with making people who can afford insurance purchase it. Minimal health care should be provided to people who cannot afford it (status quo), and those who can afford it but choose not to purchase it should just be refused service and left to die.