A clear constitutional choice from two ObamaCare rulings
One of the key legal arguments in the various ObamaCare lawsuits concerns the “individual mandate.” Can Congress require citizens to buy a good or service under its Commerce Clause power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”? Does the specific decision not to purchase health insurance constitute an “economic activity” that Congress can regulate?
This week, we got an answer from U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler that contradicts the determination made last month by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson. While the Supreme Court may not directly compare the two judges’ respective reasonings when it eventually decides the fate of the health-reform law — and I’ll note again that the “score” on the district- or appeals-court level doesn’t matter in the end — I think the following passages get to the heart of the conflict.
First, Kessler’s conclusion, which pretty well tracks the Obama administration’s argument:
It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
Now, what Vinson had to say about this argument:
If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [the quote comes from the Supreme Court's Lopez ruling], and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended. … In Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 after stating that, if the statute were to be upheld, “we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.” If some type of already-existing activity or undertaking were not considered to be a prerequisite to the exercise of commerce power, we would go beyond the concern articulated in Lopez for it would be virtually impossible to posit anything that Congress would be without power to regulate. (emphases original to the Vinson ruling)
I know it is difficult to do so, given the attention we’ve all paid to the health-reform debate, but try for a moment to imagine that these arguments were being made about a different law — one in which the federal government required every citizen to purchase, say, a gym membership in order to keep themselves in better health, on the grounds that this will lead to less obesity and thus lower health-care costs across the nation.
In that case, which of these arguments would be more in line with the Constitution?
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter
Tweet this blog post: Tweet
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
116 comments Add your comment
Intown
February 24th, 2011
11:12 am
Kessler is more consistent with the Constitution. The power to regulate commerce is broad and deep. I would also disagree with Vinson’s characterization that a health care free rider is failing to engage in commerce.
As a practical matter, if this individual mandate gets struck down, the only alternative to the status quo is to go to a single payer health system aka – Government Run Healthcare. So, choose your poison Repubs.
PatDowns
February 24th, 2011
11:12 am
First?
Kyle Wingfield
February 24th, 2011
11:42 am
Ok, Intown, so which failures to engage in commerce would be off-limits? Where’s the line? Who gets to decide which inactivity is economically important and which one isn’t?
Andy
February 24th, 2011
11:51 am
For those who choose to opt out of an insurance plan, have a serious illness or accident, and show up at a hospital emergency room for care, should these people not bear some responsibility for the costs of that health care? Isn’t a fine a recognition that these costs are going to be incurred by the state, and there needs to be some way to offset those costs?
that's goofy
February 24th, 2011
11:51 am
Kyle – I like this one. Wonder how long until this spirals into left vs right?
I’ve looked at this – I’ve read it multiple times. I’m still conflicted. Buying a gym membership and improving your health is good for the individual and the rest of us. Better health reduces cost. But… we are Americans – we can (and do) choose to be fat and sedentary if we want to.
The Constitution is designed to protect us from the government and in some cases ourselves.
I’m going to get a large milkshake and think about this.
Kyle Wingfield
February 24th, 2011
11:56 am
that’s goofy: I disagree on the part about protecting us from ourselves. I don’t think that’s the point of the Constitution. If you don’t have the freedom to make a mistake, you aren’t very free.
There are ways to deal with the problem of free riders without resorting to such a pervasive law.
Andy
February 24th, 2011
12:01 pm
Kyle, So how would you deal with freeloaders?
Mr_B
February 24th, 2011
12:03 pm
Kyle: You answered your 11:42 with your quote from the Constitution: Congress gets to decide, which they have done. IF Congress changes its mind, it is free under the Constitution to amend or repeal the law as it stands.
Mr_B
February 24th, 2011
12:06 pm
This isn’t about protecting us from ourselves. This is about protection from others who want a free ride in the healthcare marketplace that inevitably crosses state lines.
Intown
February 24th, 2011
12:08 pm
Congress decides Mr. Wingfield. Congress.
Kyle Wingfield
February 24th, 2011
12:13 pm
Andy: It depends on whether you mean from a pre-existing condition standpoint, or the standpoint of not having insurance but not being denied care.
If the former, you could do a lot of things short of the mandate: One of them would be to require insurers to accept anyone who can provide proof of immediate prior coverage. Another would be to allow smaller employers, or the self- or unemployed, to form/join national risk pools that would mimic the larger risk pools that large employers can form under their self-insuring power under ERISA. (When I joined the AJC’s insurance plan, no one asked me whether I or my wife or child had a pre-existing condition, because Cox’s risk pool is large enough that it doesn’t really matter.) Those are some examples, not an exhaustive list.
If the latter, you can deal with it from a practical standpoint — have more urgent care clinics near ERs, and have the vast majority of uninsured people treated there, if only to lower the cost. Change the way the tax benefits of health insurance flow. Improve price transparency among health-care providers so that the market mechanism can work better to bring down the price of care, which is the root problem here anyway. Again, just a few examples, most of which I’ve written about before.
Some of these may be included in ObamaCare, but all of them could be implemented without the additional bureaucracy, cost, taxes and centralized control that are also features of that law.
Kyle Wingfield
February 24th, 2011
12:15 pm
Mr_B and Intown: And there is no check on Congress? Its power is absolute?
There is no historically accurate way you can argue that the Constitution created such unlimited power for Congress, or for any branch of the federal government.
gs
February 24th, 2011
12:17 pm
Many people see this new law as a stepping stone to socialized medicine, and in many ways it is a precursor. Our medical system has grown over-bloated much like the housing market and is in need of correction. My only qualm is that I am steadily hurdling towards retirement age, and I don’t have a good feeling about the ultimate outcome of health care in my golden years-lol. I would like for we as a people to quit fighting and quibbling about inevitable change, and start crafting a more acceptable end result.
CJ
February 24th, 2011
12:18 pm
First of all, the decision not to purchase insurance means higher insurance premiums for those who do purchase insurance and higher taxes for everybody since Ronald Reagan signed legislation requiring emergency rooms to treat all comers regardless of ability to pay. The Republicans are right when they say that we have a national health insurance program that covers everybody–the most expensive and inefficient national health insurance program in the world. (By the way, gym memberships don’t reduce health care costs. Exercise does. You don’t need a gym membership for that.)
But let’s be clear. Republicans do not oppose health insurance mandates because of the Commerce Clause. They oppose these specific mandates because they were passed by a Democratic Congress and Democratic President. How do I know this?
1. They were for health insurance mandates before they were against them: http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Grassley_backtracks_on_individual_mandate.html
2. Republicans continue to support mandates via their efforts to privatize social security—amounting to mandates that we put save with the financial institutions that nearly took us out in 2008.
3. Senate Democrats have offered to work with Republicans to replace the mandates with alternatives such as an open enrollment period combined with tax credits for purchasing insurance. Senate Republicans aren’t interested in talking and House Republicans have no such legislation under considersation. Why not? Because this isn’t about the mandates. It’s about bringing Obama down.
dl
February 24th, 2011
12:22 pm
How about requiring a weigh-in to recieve food stamps??
CJ
February 24th, 2011
12:26 pm
I meant to say that we had the most expensive and inefficient national health insurance program in the industrialized world.
Tweets that mention A clear constitutional choice from two ObamaCare rulings | Kyle Wingfield -- Topsy.com
February 24th, 2011
12:27 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by kwingfieldajc, kwingfieldajc. kwingfieldajc said: A clear constitutional choice from two ObamaCare rulings http://bit.ly/gKJi0b [...]
Jeff in Michigan
February 24th, 2011
12:28 pm
First, none of you are constitutional scholars least of all the author. This whole issue is a red herring. The issue has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with the limits on Congressional power. In this case, the power of Congress IS deep and broad. The limit to this power isn’t the Supreme Court. It is the voting public. That’s why all the hysteria just more Republican fear mongering. Congress CAN require everyone to go to the gym or face a fine, but would only be able to do so if the public agreed that this was in best interests of the country. The majority of voters DO agree that everyone should have health insurance. THAT is why Congress can mandate it.
Jeff in Michigan
February 24th, 2011
12:35 pm
As far as Kyle’s alternative plan, convince a Republican to submit it and get it scored by the CBO and see how it compares to the savings that the current plan delivers. THEN we can debate the merits. The reality, though, is that the Republicans haven’t produced an alternative. That’s because they are in the pockets of the big money interests in healthcare that don’t want any change.
Andy
February 24th, 2011
12:36 pm
Kyle, if you are unemployed, you do not have the money to buy a health insurance plan, so it doesn’t matter what the risk pool is like.
As for urgent care, funneling people into urgent care makes a lot of sense, but if you are avoiding going to a doctor because you cannot afford it, a potential simple illness may well have escalated into something much more serious and much more expensive to treat. If society’s goal is to lower overall health care costs, then it would make sense to treat illnesses as early as possible. An example would be dental care; much better to get preventive care than to have to remove or replace all of your teeth or worse.
Yet republicans just gutted the community health center budgets, which seems to be equivalent to an urgent care facility. Seems very myopic; you may be cutting costs in the short run, but exploding costs in the long run.
Just look at the problems associated with Grady Hospital. They are in trouble because they have to provide indigent care to Fulton and Dekalb counties. They can reorganize all they want, but unless they address indigent care, they will always have to reorganize every few years. Health care reform attempted to address these issues, but all republicans are able to see are bureaucratic foul ups.
Jefferson
February 24th, 2011
12:40 pm
Single payer is the way to go. Best thing since sliced bread. What are we waiting for, anything less is backing up.
Idle Remarks
February 24th, 2011
12:42 pm
Outlaw ALL health insurance and let the free market (doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc.) determine costs. They WOULD go down, and we might all be better served.
Sam
February 24th, 2011
12:45 pm
The courts have divided along “party” (actually ideological) lines where the currently seated supreme court justices will limit rather than expand congressional authority over states and individuals. Only question is whether Virginia ruling is the model (strike down mandate, uphold the law) or Florida ruling prevails (the mandate is the heart of the law, so they’re both struck down.) Intown is right about government option but wrong about it being “practical.” There’s no way it passes the currently seated Congress.
Final outcome prediction on covered lives:
What survives: 16 million members being added to Medicaid (costs $82 – $130 billion) in theory, but in fact, they become extremely hard to find and enroll.
What dies: 16 million individuals forced into state insurance exchanges for subsidized premiums (reduces health care reform costs by over $80 billion in subsidies.)
Jeff in Michigan
February 24th, 2011
12:52 pm
This is a no-brainer on the supreme court. They have consistently upheld this aspect of Congressional power and will uphold it this time too. The court does not want to weigh in on every law that Congress passes, which is what would happen if they struck down this one. They also don’t want to empower states and, by implication, state courts to over rule the federal government, and by implication, the Supreme Court. It’s not going to happen.
Mr_B
February 24th, 2011
12:54 pm
Kyle: I’m not suggesting that Congress powers are unlimited.What I am claiming that under the ICC clause, Congress does have the right to regulate health care. The check on Congress comes every 2 and 6 years. In 2008, the electorate decided that health care reform was a valid poltical consideration. In 2010 they indicated that some of the electorate didn’t think so. My guess is that in 2012, the pendulum will have swung toward the center again, as the gloom and doom scenarios of the health care opponents fail to materialize; but I’ve been wrong before.
Critical Thinker
February 24th, 2011
12:54 pm
I agree with the author. The few goodies that Obamacare has (i.e. closing the donut hole, covering pre-existing conditions, etc.) could have been done without a massive, intrusive, bill that strips our individual freedoms. If you have any doubt that the bill is intrusive…..just read it. It uses the phrase……” the HHS secretary SHALL” hundreds of times. Do you really want the HHS secretary deciding what is ” acceptable ” health care coverage for you ? Obamacare was passed by one party in a nefarous way in the dark of the night. When Medicare was passed over 50 years ago, it had bipartisan support (unlike Obamacare). Obamacare won’t stick for the long haul….there are too many elements in the law that just don’t make any sense. If Obamacare was such a great deal, then why have over 700 waivers been granted to businesses and unions that don’t want any part of it ?
ByteMe
February 24th, 2011
12:59 pm
(When I joined the AJC’s insurance plan, no one asked me whether I or my wife or child had a pre-existing condition, because Cox’s risk pool is large enough that it doesn’t really matter.)
This is not true. You should shop for insurance some time, Kyle.
My little two-person company — me and my wife are the only employees — were able to obtain health insurance whereas Mrs. ByteMe cannot get it on her own because of pre-existing conditions. It’s not about the size of the “risk pool” for your company, that just controls the cost.
The game is rigged to make it easier for employers to buy insurance (and overpay for the insurance company to cover pre-existing conditions) whereas if you don’t get insurance from your employer, the cost is lower, but they are strict about pre-existing conditions.
Critical Thinker
February 24th, 2011
1:10 pm
I find it interesting that when the administration was trying to shove the Obamacare law through they said ” Oh this is not a tax. ” Now that they want to try and convince the courts that it meets constitutional muster, they have flip-flopped and argue that…..” Well this is a tax and falls under the commerce clause. ” So which is it ?? The Supreme Court is not stupid. You can’t force someone to buy a private product for INACTIVITY or just ” being. ” The Commerce clause doesn’t apply here.
John
February 24th, 2011
1:13 pm
@Kyle
“If the latter, you can deal with it from a practical standpoint — have more urgent care clinics near ERs, and have the vast majority of uninsured people treated there, if only to lower the cost.”
Who will pay to build these urgrent care clinics and the medical costs for those receiving care from these clinics?
What if
February 24th, 2011
1:30 pm
I’m fine with getting rid of the health care law that took many decades by both Republican (not to be confused with conservative) and Democratic leaders to finally pass. Such short memories. I’m fine with it as long as hospitals and doctors offices are allowed to refuse service to the uninsured so I don’t have to pay for their care with my medical bills. Just let ‘em die. Your solution, Kyle?
Linda
February 24th, 2011
1:32 pm
In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, the CBO studied the plan’s provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance and determined it was an unprecedented act.
The CBO stated: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”
The health care mandate appears to be the first attempt in the history of the US that Congress is forcing us to buy a product! Kessler is correct that forgoing health insurance could have “serious economic & health consequences” but so is not being immunized or buying a refrigerator.
jm
February 24th, 2011
1:35 pm
good column kyle. keep fighting the good fight.
Jeffrey Burk
February 24th, 2011
1:41 pm
Enter your comments I support destroying ObamaCAre with armed violence
Jeffrey Burk
February 24th, 2011
1:46 pm
those of us who who hate this pigslop whould overthrow ObamaCare in the sameway MiddleEast protestors are overthrowing their goverments…with outright rebellion
Rich
February 24th, 2011
1:50 pm
Hey Kyle: This whole argument is really stupid. The penalty for not having health insurance under the law is not JAIL, but rather financial. So the government says, if you do not have health insurance you have to pay a penalty. Please tell me this…..what is the practical and functional difference between this and permitting a tax benefit for those who purchase a house. Isn’t that essentially penalizing those who choose to rent? Sure it is. So the governments says if you rent, you are penalized financially. It is EXACTLY the same thing. NO DIFFERENCE. So if your argument is true, you must be against the home mortgage deduction, right? Is it unconstitutional??? The government, for many moons, has sought to influence people’s purchasing habits in favor of some and against others. This is all that is happening here, and there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about it at all. This broccoli stiff is just about as STUPID as it gets, and any JUDGE who relies on this kind of reasoning in a legal decision should be laughed off the bench!!
Jeffrey Burk
February 24th, 2011
2:05 pm
Well Jeff in Michigan..I hope congress mandates you wear pink panties
Hillbilly Deluxe
February 24th, 2011
2:13 pm
It’s going to the Supreme Court and will settled in a 5-4 decision, most likely. Until then, all these different decisions don’t really matter.
thebob.bob
February 24th, 2011
2:23 pm
We have the most expensive and least fair or effective health care system in the industrial world. There are several models out there to adapt to the USA that would save billions and give better results. Single payer, government funded health insurance will be the result. Do we have to have our Rube Goldberg system completely collapse before we figure it out?
2 Cents
February 24th, 2011
2:31 pm
Government run healthcare is gonna be just as good as government run housing. Sure, go to a single payer system. Let’s see how we are going to like that change. Hey, while we are at it lets have government take over all housing and tell us where we can live. This is a very slipperly slope that I do not think will end well.
This healthcare bill is a monster and it is gonna eat some ppl.
Better reforms could have been put in place:
HSA rollovers
Family member ages increase; extended family added to policy for additional fee.
Critical Thinker
February 24th, 2011
2:33 pm
Judge Kessler’s reasoning is flawed. It is not just a matter of semantics. I could CHOOSE to pay cash for my health care services instead of buying an insurance policy. So therefore, my choice to not have an insurance policy would not cause an economic hardship on others or even myself. In our hospital, we have a patient who is regularly admitted and has never been insured. But he always pays his bills with cash whether he comes into the hospital or the emergency room. Is he harming anyone else by choosing ( whether actively or inactively) not to have an insurance policy ?
Kessler’s opinion also makes the inaccurate assumption that HEALTH CARE is the same as HEALTH Insurance. It is not. I could have insurance and not be able to find a doctor to give me health care. Having an insurance policy does not guarantee that I will improve the health and safety of myself or anyone else. If the commerce clause can force me to buy a private product by just being alive, we are in big trouble. What’s next……a certain type of car or a certain type of clothes ?
Dan
February 24th, 2011
2:46 pm
Thank you critical thinker! The key to having a reasonable discussion about this whole topic is dissassociating health care cost and health insurance. One of the primary problems is people expect their health insurance to cover normal expenditures, there is an expectation that someone else is going to pay the bill, $100 a month would pay for about 2 annual physicals. Any other charge, perscription, xray, extra tests, a visit for the flu or a coold, etc and you are in the black for your health care. The biggest problem is people don’t pay attention to the cost of health services
Cutty
February 24th, 2011
2:54 pm
Funny, you kept score in previous ‘articles’, but not so much now. Interesting.
Cutty
February 24th, 2011
3:05 pm
Winfield- 1/31/11- “We now have two district-court judges who have said the mandate is fine, and two who have said it’s unconstitutional. That means today’s ruling will take away, at least for now, the silly left-wing argument after a judge in Virginia ruled against ObamaCare that the law was somehow on solid footing because two judges were for it and only one was against it.”
Keeping score is what you do, as long as its in you’re winning.
Kyle Wingfield
February 24th, 2011
3:08 pm
As you well know, Cutty, since you went back to the earlier blog post, the very next part of the post read: “That argument was silly because it only takes one case to proceed to the Supreme Court for the high-court justices to rule on the law definitively. And that is, after all, where we are headed eventually.”
It’s called cherry-picking, I think.
Kyle Wingfield
February 24th, 2011
3:12 pm
It’s very telling, Rich @ 1:50, that you consider the failure to obtain an incentive equivalent to a punishment.
But in any case, and I’m already on record saying this, I would favor eliminating the mortgage-interest deduction as part of an overhaul of the tax code that led to flatter, simpler, lower taxes.
Health Care Reform Ruling By Judge “Extremely Specious”, Critics Explain – Daily Health Report | Health Insurance News
February 24th, 2011
3:17 pm
[...] Court Upholds Health Care ReformCare2.com (blog)RTT News -NewsHour -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 77 news articles [...]
JoJo
February 24th, 2011
3:18 pm
It’s amazing to me that anyone would stand behind her reasoning. You may like and support the healthcare law, but this is a hell of a precedent to set and the ends do not justify the means. Watch what happens when it’s something you don’t support. Your ideologies blind you. Wait and see, wait and see.
Cutty
February 24th, 2011
3:30 pm
Oh so you were talking about the ’silly argument’ of keeping score and not the silly left-wing argument? Yeah ok. May I interest u in some beachfront property in Indiana?
killerj
February 24th, 2011
3:33 pm
Neither,both are politically motivated to control thought and actions,your freedom is being taken away and you don,t even realize it.Go Tea Party.
joe
February 24th, 2011
3:35 pm
@ Intown- I want no part of idiotic congress deciding for me, or anyone in public sector for that matter. Their way of thinking is totally warped, replacing personal responsibility with a one-size fits all mentality. That’s why the USA is on a downward slide with no end in sight…well, at least until 2012.
williebkind
February 24th, 2011
3:41 pm
There is no problem! We will elect another president in 2012, retake the senate, and then repeal the unconstitutional Obamacare. I will make a large investment in Kleenex. The liberals will cry me to riches.
Dave M.
February 24th, 2011
3:47 pm
The power to regulate commerce implies a power to set the procedure by which a transaction takes place, or to prohibit such transactions. It does not imply the power to compel such transactions, especially where that transaction is compelled solely to bring it within reach of federal regulation.
Imagine if the soda pop lobby, backed by the corn-agro lobby, decided that your decision not to consume their bubbly product chock full of HFCS was harming the U.S. economy. Therefore, they lobby Congress to make everyone consume soda pop, under the ostensible explanation of “we need to help our corn farmers and our domestic enterprises.” There’d be howls of corruption and unconstitutionality from both sides…
Yet, when the health insurance lobby does exactly the same thing, and does it by donating en masse to a current White-House-holding Democrat who was elected in 2008… Apparently then, for the left, it’s all kosher, and there’s no reason to pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.
Gimme a break.
that's goofy
February 24th, 2011
3:48 pm
it is too late now but…
When I wrote about protecting us from ourselves – I didn’t mean in a nanny state way. I was thinking along the lines of giving up our rights or impeding others based on majority rule.
Sorry I wasn’t clear.
Dave M.
February 24th, 2011
3:50 pm
How do we deal with the free loaders?
Easy. Repeal the federal law that mandates all emergency rooms to treat all comers, whether in critical condition, or those with a sniffle but without insurance.
Allen
February 24th, 2011
3:50 pm
The distinction between “unconstitutional” and “bad” is important. It would be constitutional for Congress to raise tax rates to 90% of income to fund a multi-billion dollar amusement park for my springer spaniel, Annie, but bad.
More conservatives should be willing to admit that the individual mandate is constitutional — or at least in line with more than a century’s worth of settled judicial precedent — and that they simply think it’s bad.
Charles Fried, Reagan’s solicitor general, addresses the activity-as-prerequsite-to-commerce issue here.
Dave M.
February 24th, 2011
4:06 pm
@Allen: The fact that Fried is basing his legal analysis on John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland is a de facto concession that the mandate isn’t based on the Commerce Clause, but instead is based upon the Necessary and Proper Clause (McCulloch was not a Commerce Clause case).
Following from that concession then, I have to agree with Judge Vinson that while regulation of the insurance market is commerce, and that the mandate is necessary to that regulation, the mandate is not a proper regulation within a constitutional system where the federal head is one of limited and enumerated powers.
Never in the history of the United States has Congress conditioned lawfully residing in this country upon the purchase of a private good under the Commerce Power. The fact it’s taken that long is itself evidence that the power doesn’t exist and has only been recently imagined to exist.
that's goofy
February 24th, 2011
4:12 pm
@ Dave
1. Pretty sure not treating people goes against the ethics of most doctors. But the corporate hospitals might like this plan.
2. The solution to the problem is to allow the uninsured (poor) to suffer?
Wow.
Allen
February 24th, 2011
4:13 pm
Dave M @ 3:47 – There is a clear difference between mandating the purchase of health insurance (if one can afford it) and mandating the consumption of food items. Mandating that citizens consume something — in addition to being so stupid that Congress would never do it — is an obvious violation of the personal liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
The federal government uses tax dollars to purchase billions dollars worth of vegetables, meat, and dairy products now — often with the explicit mission of stabilizing agricultural markets or improving the health of the citizenry. So, the government actually does force “us” to purchase food already.
It’s not clear to me how this “central mandate” differs from an “individual mandate” with respect to the Constitution. Obviously, central food purchasing is more efficient. In fact, many observers think a central purchasing (or ’single payer’) model for health care would be more efficient.
Your critique should reckon with these factors.
carlosgvv
February 24th, 2011
4:14 pm
The Constitution is no more or less than what the Supreme Court says it is. Since the current Court tilts to the conservative side, Obamacare will probably be struck down. A liberal court would uphold it. It’s just that simple. So don’t waste your time and energy pondering all the complex legalities of Obamacare. They mean nothing in the end. It’s all about politics.
poison pen
February 24th, 2011
4:14 pm
Jeff In Michigan, totally wrong, the last polls showed that the voters didn’t want Obamacare. Please show us where the majority voted for it, please!
poison pen
February 24th, 2011
4:17 pm
carlsgvv, you are correct and it’s a shame that ploitics enters into so much of our lives. I can’t stand most politicans because they are all liars, and I mean all. I consider myself a Moderate person and I don’t mind ripping Repubs just as much as Dems.
I only wish more people would be more objective in their thoughts and be more honest with themselves.
poison pen
February 24th, 2011
4:21 pm
How do we deal with freeloaders? Well I don’t see anything written anywhere where we have to support them. They need to get a job and stand on their own two feet.
I am all for helping anyone who has a severe setback in their lives due to circumstances beyond their control, but only that way.
ElephantWhip
February 24th, 2011
4:27 pm
I have not heard it yet (I did not read all of these posts).
If non-action is un-regulatable, then why do men 18-25 have to register for selective service?
ElephantWhip
February 24th, 2011
4:30 pm
carlosgvv:
Don’t be so pessimistic. There is a swing-voter who might consider this a good thing. And some of the conservatives are going to have to back-pedal a lot because they used the commerce clause to enable the feds to regulate some pretty obscure things.
liam
February 24th, 2011
4:32 pm
selective service doesn’t fall under the commerce clause. it falls under a different part of the constitution (to raise and support armies) which provides for that.
carlosgvv
February 24th, 2011
4:34 pm
poison pen
Well said.
ElephantWhip
I hope you are right.
ElephantWhip
February 24th, 2011
4:34 pm
10-4, liam. I was thinking that as soon as I hit ’submit.’
Linda
February 24th, 2011
4:42 pm
Illinois has become a safe haven for immigrants: state Dem. senators on the lam, running away from their constitutional responsibilities they swore to uphold.
They have created a new congressional maneuver. It’s called killabillibuster.
Allen
February 24th, 2011
5:02 pm
Dave M @ 4:06 — Thanks, but Mr. Fried cites Gibbons v Ogden in establishing the applicability of the Commerce Clause. And even if most or all past regulations pertain to activity and not inactivity, no known constitutional text or doctrine limits Congress to regulating “activity.”
The claim “regulations of inactivity are novel” obviously fails to establish that that they are also unconstitutional. Many constitutional regulations have an element of novelty when enacted. In this case, all that matters is whether the novel feature is fatal to the notion that Congress is here regulating interstate commerce. And unless I am mistaken, you have conceded this point.
Even the definition of “inactivity” you use is suspect. While one can withdraw from an insurance market, one cannot withdraw from the larger health care market. Given that emergency rooms must provide treatment whether or not patients can pay for care, is it plausible to suggest that people can be “inactive” in the health care market?
Mr_B
February 24th, 2011
5:20 pm
Linda: I’m not sure, but I’d be willing to bet that the line “to appear in the Senate chamber and vote” is not in the oath of office for Wisconsin state senators.
Linda
February 24th, 2011
5:40 pm
Mr_B@5:20, Wouldn’t you guess that maybe, just maybe that oath might be to uphold the constitution of Wis. & that the Wis. constitution does not even mention the Holiday Inn or Best Western?
Jeff in Michigan
February 24th, 2011
6:15 pm
@poison pen – What, google doesn’t work on your computer? Newsweek just printed a pretty good summary earlier this month.
“Like the Democrats before them, the GOP has grown so used to winning the issue—with polls consistently registering public opposition to the reform law—that they seem blind to shifting public sentiment. While a January 16 AP-GfK poll found Americans virtually evenly divided on the healthcare law (40 to 41 against), only 26 percent favored a straight repeal. By contrast, 43 percent want to revise the law so that it “does more to change the healthcare system.” A January 18 Washington Post-ABC News poll found the law unpopular (50 percent disapproving), but one quarter of the critics opposed it for not going far enough. So it’s no surprise that less than 1 in 5 Americans favored a straight repeal. Likewise, a January 20 Pew Research poll found that nearly as many people want to expand the law (35 percent) as want to repeal it (37 percent).”
Next time do your own research before you post.
Jeff in Michigan
February 24th, 2011
6:22 pm
@ Jeffrey Burke – if you can convince a majority of congressmen to pass a law that requires me to wear pink panties, I would consider it an honor and my patriotic duty to do so. Besides they would be much more comfortable than my current commando preference.
Ed
February 24th, 2011
6:50 pm
The notion that those who go without insurance are still involved in commerce via their “decision” not to purchase insurance is akin to saying those who do not fly are part of the airline industry via their decision not to buy a 747.
all I know.....
February 24th, 2011
6:59 pm
Is if I don’t buy auto insurance and get stopped for some reason I am fined and can have my licenses revoked and if I don’t keep my home insured on my own the Mortage lender will purchase some for me and charge me accordingly.
Linda
February 24th, 2011
7:16 pm
all@6:59, Let’s not confuse state law (auto insurance) & contract law (between you & your lender) with fed. law & whether a fed. law is constitutional.
You are not required to buy auto insurance (or a tag or a driver’s license) just because you own a car, let it sit or drive it on your property. Auto insurance is only required by the state to drive your car on the roads.
AngryRedMarsWoman
February 24th, 2011
9:51 pm
I certainly don’t want to argue in favor of the auto insurance requirement inasmuch as I think it is a load of liability-shifting crap dreamed up by the insurance carriers anyway – but let’s not confuse a requirement that you carry insurance to cover the losses/injuries you cause to other people with a requirement that you do the same to cover your personal risk. I am not aware of any state that requires a person to carry comprehensive auto insurance, just liability. Assuming that I do not have a contract with a private lender that requires me to insure the vehicle itself for damage, I only have to carry the state minimum amount of liability for damages caused to others. And if the damages are in excess of that guess what? I am still personally liable. And if I don’t have comp and I total my car, guess what? I am SOL unless I can afford to replace my car. I am not required to have liability insurance in case someone is hurt in my home (unless my lender requires it), so why must I have insurance to cover my liability in an auto accident? Why not let people choose to carry uninsured motorist insurance or go naked and sue when they get hit by someone else? What makes cars so special? I can get hurt in your house, your place of business, walking on the sidewalk….and if you don’t have insurance then you are liable to me and while I am suing you and trying to get blood from a stone my health insurance (or my pocketbook) is paying the costs. Why not require every man, woman and child to carry an umbrella policy in case they ever hurt someone else?
Allen
February 24th, 2011
9:51 pm
Ed @ 6:50pm: It cannot be said enough that failure to purchase health insurance has a major effect on interstate commerce. Since emergency rooms must treat patients whether or not they can pay, some number of uninsured people will inevitably impose costs on the health care system.
People can freely choose whether or not purchase an airplane, but people cannot choose to magically avoid expensive health issues. The individual mandate holds people responsible for the costs that the rest of us would otherwise bear. And since health care costs account for 17% of GDP, few would argue that the issue does not affect interstate commerce.
TjAtl
February 25th, 2011
12:54 am
All of us pay (dearly) for people who don’t have insurance. People who don’t have insurance populate emergency rooms for all sorts of non-emergency conditions because they can go there and not be refused for treatment because they can’t pay up front. Any parent with small children who has had to visit a pediatric ER can testify. The hospital absorbs the cost of this care and passes it along to people who pay cash AND people who have insurance.
You’re already paying for it!
Bottom line: unless this country is willing to say that hospitals can *refuse* care to anyone who can’t pay up front or has insurance then the commerce clause has to apply. If everyone is entitled to partake of the services, then everyone can be compelled to have participate in insurance.
Do away with the law that requires ERs to treat anyone regardless of ability to pay and only THEN would the argument against an individual mandate make sense (philosophically or economically).
TjAtl
February 25th, 2011
12:54 am
All of us pay (dearly) for people who don’t have insurance. People who don’t have insurance populate emergency rooms for all sorts of non-emergency conditions because they can go there and not be refused for treatment because they can’t pay up front. Any parent with small children who has had to visit a pediatric ER can testify. The hospital absorbs the cost of this care and passes it along to people who pay cash AND people who have insurance.
You’re already paying for it!
Bottom line: unless this country is willing to say that hospitals can *refuse* care to anyone who can’t pay up front or has insurance then the commerce clause has to apply. If everyone is entitled to partake of the services, then everyone can be compelled to have participate in insurance.
Do away with the law that requires ERs to treat anyone regardless of ability to pay and only THEN would the argument against an individual mandate make sense (philosophically or economically).
Critical Thinker
February 25th, 2011
1:29 am
False Assumption # 1. ….” people cannot choose to magically avoid expensive health issues ”
It is true that some people can get a catastrophic illness that is not their fault. However, many health issues can be avoided with healthy eating habits and exercise. In addition, some people save money for their care. So to a certain degree, people can often avoid expensive health issues.
False Assumption # 2: ” The individual mandate holds people responsible for costs that the rest of us would otherwise bear. ”
If I come in and pay cash for my care, how is anyone else burdened ? Just because I don’t choose to have an insurance policy does not mean I am a free-loader. Again, health insurance is not the same as health care. Just ask some of the insured people in Massachusetts about their wait in a crowded emergency room because they can’t find a primary care doctor to care for them.
Michael H. Smith
February 25th, 2011
3:03 am
Kyle, really, this is not difficult in the least. What is in question has nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of the individual or the lack thereof. The Constitution was not given/written to restrict or authorized an individual by any means: Our rights, which includes the right to act or not to act are given to us by our creator, we need no further authority, for none on earth is greater. It was however, given/written to restrict or authorize the means by which government could act, for the rights of government are given to it by us, as we are its’ creator.
Where is the enumeration, the “specifically listed operative clause” under Article 1 Section 8 that gives to the federal government, Congress, the power to make an individual buy healthcare or healthcare insurance?
Yes, it must be “specifically listed” in order for the federal government to take any action “applicable to the commerce clause”. See the Federalist Papers numbers 41 and 45 if any doubts prevail. James Madison made it very clear that the powers of the federal government where to be extremely limited to only a very few by way of the enumeration. Where there is no enumeration giving the federal government the specific authority to act, whatever the issue no matter the importance, the matter is simply is not germane to the federal government, as it becomes then becomes solely germane to the individual State’s Rights.
independent thinker
February 25th, 2011
6:28 am
Saint Ronnie pases a bill in 1986 called EMTALA that requires all hospitals to treat anyone who shows up in an emergency room regardless of ability to pay. Thus other paying patients must cover the cost or the hospital goes broke. Many actually have closed up as a result of EMTALA.Tell me Kyle where in the Constitution is thispermitted? Why have have none of the states challenged Saint Ronnie and EMTALA? Where is the solution the Repubs have to this unconstitutional burden on hospitals and paying patients? Or is mandatory insurance a necessary and proper solution to EMTALA since the burden of paying for illegals and and deadbeats with no insurance effects commerce in that insurance companies are a part of interstate commerce?
jt
February 25th, 2011
7:45 am
Basically, everyone arguing this issue is admitting that nine Federal Government workers have the right to your property.(including your labor)(pay for this product or else).
Regardless if it is 2011 or not,
this is called slavery.
buck@gon
February 25th, 2011
9:23 am
What is missing from all this debate is the falacious assumption that anyone who is unwilling or incapable or making a decision for themselves is, under the liberal fantasy of Obamacare and all liberal politics, therefore incubent to elect someone who will order these things for them and for the rest of us.
By this we get Democrat sense from the senseless.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
February 25th, 2011
9:35 am
The Kessler argument is patently silly. One makes a conscious decision to not do many things, such as purchasing a GM car. By her “logic” Congress can compel us to buy a GM car, due to the Commerce Clause. Only a leftist could like that argument.
John Galt
February 25th, 2011
10:07 am
So under the Interstate Commerce Clause the government can force you to do something against your own best interests? I don’t think so.
What about forcing women to have abortions? After all, that fetus will require 12 years of schooling at 9k a year, not to mention food, clothing and a job or welfare after that.
Is there an impact on commerce there?
What about the opposite? Forcing women to have children so we can have enough payers in the future to support the Social Security payments those alive today are going to need. Can they do that?
It’s either all or nothing. To arbitrarily decide these issues may have worked for a while, but they won’t work forever.
getalife
February 25th, 2011
10:15 am
So, how many judges sided with the President?
I think the mandate sets a horrible precedent because corporate power controls corrupt Congress.
They came for the unions and will come for your wages and benefits next.
Then they can force you to buy their crap.
You cons should stop bowing down to corporate power.
Allen
February 25th, 2011
10:28 am
Ragnar & J. Galt — It cannot be said enough that failure to purchase health insurance has a major effect on interstate commerce. Since emergency rooms must treat patients whether or not they can pay, some number of uninsured people will inevitably impose costs on the health care system.
People can freely choose whether or not purchase a GM car, but people cannot choose to magically avoid expensive health issues. The individual mandate holds people responsible for the costs that the rest of us would otherwise bear.
Health care costs account for 17% of GDP, so this is a substantial matter of interstate commerce.
And the argument that “because the government can do one thing, it can do anything!” is just slippery-slope hysteria. Congressional power to mandate the purchase of health insurance does not imply Congressional power to mandate anything one might imagine.
Allen
February 25th, 2011
10:35 am
Critical Thinker @1:29am — Your false assumptions fail to address my argument. In the absence of a health insurance mandate, some uncertain slice of the population will definitely remain uninsured. And some slice of that uninsured population will definitely need health care treatment and receive it at the emergency room. And since virtually no one can afford to pay hospital bills out of pocket, the hospital must absorb that cost by passing it along to paying customers.
Of course, people can make lifestyle choices that are more or less healthy. But no one can be certain that they will never need expensive health care treatments. That’s magical thinking.
John Galt
February 25th, 2011
10:35 am
Allen,
Does having or not having a child have a major impact on interstate commerce?
It’s a yes or no question.
John Galt
February 25th, 2011
10:39 am
And Allen, people can freely choose to buy or not buy a GM car today. But what aspect of the Intestate Commerce Clause prohibits a change tomorrow?
Remember, it was the decision of a farmer to grow wheat “for his own personal consumption” that justified the ICC. In effect, a loaf of bread. In effect a 29 cent transaction.
So it is not the value of the transactions or expenses that are the needed justification to act under the ICC.
It is about control.
Dr. Pangloss
February 25th, 2011
10:41 am
… but try for a moment to imagine that these arguments were being made about a different law — one in which the federal government required every citizen to purchase, say, a gym membership in order to keep themselves in better health, on the grounds that this will lead to less obesity and thus lower health-care costs across the nation.
The government did require some of my high school classmates to buy a gym membership; it was called being drafted into the Army.
And it’s still 3-2 in favor of Obama as far as court decisions go.
Common Sense
February 25th, 2011
10:44 am
Keeping score is the domain of fools. The US Supreme Court will not base their decision on the score of lower courts.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
February 25th, 2011
11:08 am
Dear Allen @ 10:28, good morning, while I cannot improve on the answer of John Galt @ 10:39, I offer another view. There is no rational reason that anyone should “definitely need health care treatment and receive it at the emergency room.” Only an earlier-corrupt act of government compels the hospital to perform services without assurance of payment. In a rational world the hospital could elect to treat, or not, anyone.
John Galt
February 25th, 2011
11:15 am
Ragnar,
I agree completely. The failure of previous generations and their lack of adherence to sound principles has left the burden of correcting this upon our backs.
And to not correct it moves us towards serfdom.
Allen
February 25th, 2011
11:31 am
Ragnar @ 11:08 — While I wouldn’t say there is “no rational reason” that hospitals should treat patients regardless of ability to pay, this is a subject upon which reasonable people can disagree. A rational case can be constructed around the notion that it would be the height of immorality for the wealthiest society in history to allow its neediest citizens to suffer and die for want of health care. This is a proposition that I suspect you disagree with strongly. But that does not make it self-evidently untrue or irrational.
Also, wide margins of American support some provision of healthcare for the poor, so that law is unlikely to disappear in the near future.
Allen
February 25th, 2011
11:44 am
Galt at 10:25am: Of course having a child affects interstate commerce. But Congressional restrictions on having children — in addition to being so stupid that no Congress would ever pass them — are an obvious violation of the personal liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.
While I agree that the Commerce Clause can be stretched in theory, that does not persuade me that the Commerce Clause is being stretched in this instance. Again, health care costs account for 17% of GDP.
Your claim that an insurance mandate violates the Commerce Clause rests on the assumption that Congress cannot regulate inactivity. Setting aside the fact that no known constitutional text or doctrine limits Congress to the regulation of activity, I have already demonstrated that your definition of inactivity is at least arguable, since people cannot “opt out” of expensive health problems that affect interstate commerce.
What I’m trying to say is — you guys should consider focusing on criticizing the bill on its merits more than its constitutionality. A health insurance mandate is squarely in line with over a century of settled judicial precedent all the way back to Gibbons v Ogden.
Paul Prados
February 25th, 2011
12:05 pm
If this is the reasoning that will be used to support the constitutionality of the individual mandate, I think the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the individual mandate.
My detailed analysis and link to Judge Kessler’s opinion is below:
http://northernvirginialawyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/dc-healthcare-case-excellent-legal.html
Allen
February 25th, 2011
12:14 pm
Reagan’s solicitor general — an opponent of health care reform — defends the constitutionality of the mandate here: http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/11-02-02%20Fried%20Testimony.pdf
Save America: Agitate A Liberal Daily
February 25th, 2011
1:07 pm
What’s the state count right now against Obamacare? 27? Even if it does go into effect, Boehner’s House will defund it, essentially cutting the head off the socialist snake. And a snake it is. Of course, many of the blue states in favor of it are in financial dire straits thanks to liberal socialist spending and need federal bailout help, so what do they care what it costs?
And you have to love the situation in Wisconsin where governor Walker & Republican Co. passing a bill to reduce public employee union thuggery (so-called public sector collective bargaining which should NEVER be protected or even granted). Private sector, let unions do whatever the hell they want. Companies can always pack their bags and haul ass to another state or nation (and they do). Put public sector employees are paid by the TAXPAYERS. The taxpayers should have a say through referendums and votes on bills by legislature.
But back to Obamacare (anyone hear that moonbatic liberal Dem on the House floor whine about “Obamacare” as being derogatory?). No really:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/02/obamacare-itself-what-offensive-not-name
And I agree with the article – Obamare ITSELF is offensive to Americans who want liberty and economic freedom away from the liberal socialist Dem Nanny State. We still do not know how much it will cost long term in both money and quality terms. Anyone who doesn’t think it will eventually lead to at least *some* rationing is a blind fool.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
February 25th, 2011
1:16 pm
Dear Allen @ 11:31, you ought not confuse rationality with emotion. You affirm that it is rational to enslave health care providers to treat without expectation of remuneration. That is not a rational argument, that is a value judgment (and, as you infer, one with which I disagree.) On the other hand, the rule of contract – my basis for argument – is eminently rational, founded on free exchange.
Allen
February 25th, 2011
2:03 pm
Ragnar @ 1:16: Fine then, draw me into a epistemological meta-debate. There is no ultimately conclusive way to adjudicate among value judgments. One cannot debate the most basic propositions — like “murder is bad” or “happiness is better than sadness” — without making value judgments. Indeed, your claim that health care providers need only treat paying customers contains obvious and inherently unprovable value judgments. Emotions and rationality often operate in tension, but rationality and value judgments are inextricably linked in any debate over civic priorities. This, by the way, is not an argument for moral relevancy, but an argument that rationality is our only available referee among competing value judgments.
Your system of free exchange would fall apart without a government to enforce contract law. Market economies need governments to mitigate negative externalities, or at least prevent monopolies from inhibiting the efficient allocation of resources. A long tradition of progressive government laws – for example, food inspection and prohibitions on child labor – have at first been derided as harmful government intrusions and ultimately been embraced as necessary checks against the vagaries of the market. It is at least arguable that the individual mandate fits squarely within that tradition. Claiming the exclusive imprimatur of rationality for your own value-laden viewpoint or deriding your opponents motives as purely emotional betrays your close-mindedness and lack of respect for the opinions of others.
Allen
February 25th, 2011
2:16 pm
Ragnar — You are such a civil debater, and my last sentence reads a bit harshly in retrospect. Let me rephrase: “Claiming your side of the argument as the exclusive province of rationality betrays a certain unwillingness to give the considered opinions of others a fair and open-minded hearing.” Many thanks for your responses.
John Galt
February 25th, 2011
2:20 pm
“There is no ultimately conclusive way to adjudicate among value judgments.”
And this is why the Founding Fathers chose to limit the powers of the Federal government. It ends up being not based upon a concrete principle, but a varying set of principles based upon mob rule.
Intown
February 25th, 2011
2:22 pm
“Mr_B and Intown: And there is no check on Congress? Its power is absolute?
There is no historically accurate way you can argue that the Constitution created such unlimited power for Congress, or for any branch of the federal government.”
There are three checks on Congressional power I can think of off the top of my head even if someone like me does not subscribe to the recent bout of conservative judicial activism under the broad legal theory of “Federalism’s Inherent Limitations on Congressional Power”.
(1) Elections. Under the Constitution, the House and 1/3 of the Senate turn over every 2 years.
(2) Executive Branch. Can decide not to enforce a law. For example, Obama dropping its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act.
(3) Judicial Branch. Can declare a law unconstitutional.
I just happen to disagree with you about the third check on Congressional power.
The Healthcare bill just does not offend my sensibilties. It was a good faith effort to start to fix our healthcare mess. I doubt we’ll see as strong an effort anytime in my generation.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
February 25th, 2011
2:31 pm
Dear Alan @ 2:16, no offense taken, no apology necessary. We magnify different values.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
February 25th, 2011
2:33 pm
Dear Allen @ various times, my misspelling of your name was not a willful tweak – I am not so clever. Apologies for the slight nevertheless.
the watch dog
February 25th, 2011
2:40 pm
By having two judges make a ruling on whether a citizen has to buy health insurance or have health insurance is what I call “progressive democracy” Progress is slow and at times seems like unnecessary strife and resistance. But our weapons are reason, not gun fire and rebellion like the middle east. No where in the world can comparable dignity and power in citizenship be seen. Progressive democracy is what our constitution is all about. Democracy does not lead through violence and revolts. Progressive democracy leaves our destiny with no limitations.
Allen
February 25th, 2011
3:21 pm
Ragnar: It’s cool. I want a literary name like yours, anyway.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmmmm, mmmm, mmm! Just sayin...
February 25th, 2011
4:57 pm
“First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.
“Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.
“The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act,” Gingrich said.
Gingrich said it is too early to call for Obama’s impeachment, but did not rule it out if he fails to comply with Congress and the constitutional process.
Finally, Gingrich has something deeply intelligent to say.
Hot damn, let’s do it!
independent thinker
February 25th, 2011
8:07 pm
Easy solution -repeal the socialist unfunded mandate of Reagan call EMTALA and refuse emergency medical care to the deadbeats and illegals who are running up the costs of hospital care. I doubt Kyle or any Republican has the backbone to advocate that. Unfunded mandates passed by Republican presidents like EPA, Clean Water, ADA, EMTALA, and No child left Behind are wonderful ways to sneek unconstitutional and unfunded mandates on the states and buy votes. It is the American way isn’t it?
tjatl
February 26th, 2011
12:15 am
Ragnar and Allen, I have to say that the quality of your repartee gives me hope.
If you read the works of the founding fathers, you cannot but come away with the conclusion that reasoned, nuanced, spirited, but civil exchange was at the heart of the birth of this country.
We have somehow now come to view erudite arguments as pretentious and genuine debate as something that occurs only among the “unprincipled”
Our preferred media is largely to blame — talk radio, blogs, internet news sites, cable tv. Not their fault entirely, but those formats do not readily support sustained reasoned argument. Rather, they support soundbites and sensationalism.
That said, I will repeat what I wrote earlier — if everyone in this country is *entitled* by law to receive treatment at a hospital, regardless of ability to pay, then the commerce clause can most certainly be invoked to require that those with entitlement to this service (which is everyone) purchase insurance in order to best manage the economical delivery of this entitlement.
Marilyn
February 28th, 2011
10:58 am
“Today, advocates of big spending cuts often claim that their greatest concern is the burden of debt our children will face.” (Paul Krugman, NYT)
Apparently the Reptilians (err, Republicans) forgot to consider the fate of our grandchildren.
When one contrasts how much conservatives love to talk about family values with how often they vote to make a healthy family life harder and harder to maintain, one of their key assumptions becomes clear. Often left stated — because it is far from “compassionate” and does not always play well to the middle — is that everyone, including children, will “make it” in America if they work hard enough and pray hard enough — in short, if they deserve it. There is no other way to explain, for example, how so many Americans can have a grasp of the conditions in inner-city schools and then insist that America is post-racial because everyone has equal legal rights.
This callousness — and ignorance — extends to children. However mainstream Reptilians – err Republicans – are smart enough never to say so publicly, so they leave it to the far-right mouthpieces and Tea Partiers to openly state and thus nourish these viewpoints.
I would much prefer a society that taxed me more but had clear ethical underpinnings than a society that taxed me less and let even the most innocent among us pay the difference with the quality of their lives.
Single payer health care – just like many of the more advanced nations of the world.
Ed
March 2nd, 2011
5:49 pm
Allen,
Fried also said the government can force you to buy broccoli and gym memberships. This clown is kookier than kooky.
Ed
March 2nd, 2011
5:53 pm
Marilyn,
Feel free to move to one of those more advanced nations. However, do some research first if you think their health care systems are better. Health care is not a right any more than food and water and heating oil is a right. You need food and water, heat and housing every bit as much, and even more than, health care, but I don’t see all you liberals professing that government should raise our taxes for those things!