Healthcare Hypocricy?

[SubGod22]

U.S. Can't Force People to Buy Stuff

Even if the Supreme Court has broadened the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause — it can now reach local activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce — never before has it allowed people to face a civil penalty for declining to buy a particular product. Hudson found therefore that the individual mandate "is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution."

Stated another way, every exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce has involved some form of action or transaction engaged in by an individual or legal entity. The government's theory — that the decision not to buy insurance is an economic one that affects interstate commerce in various ways — would, for the first time ever, permit laws commanding people to engage in economic activity.

Under such a reading, which judges in two other cases have unfortunately adopted, nobody would ever be able to plausibly claim that the Constitution limits congressional power. The federal government would then have wide authority to require that Americans engage in activities ranging from eating spinach and joining gyms (in the health care realm) to buying GM cars. Congress could tell people what to study or what job to take: We need fewer lawyers and more engineers, right?

As Hudson put it, "This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence."

So too now, when there is a stark difference between Congress' power to regulate the health insurance industry and a purported power to require someone to buy health insurance. It's the same difference as between the power to regulate the auto industry and — under some scheme to bail out companies that are "too big to fail" — to require everyone to buy a Chevy.

To be sure, there are situations in which the government may force individuals to engage in business. Most notably, it can require hotels and restaurants to serve all patrons. But nobody has to become a hotelier or restaurateur, or purchase lodging or food — and individuals are not commercial enterprises.

As for the oft-invoked car insurance analogy, being required to buy insurance if you choose to drive is different from having to buy it because you are alive. And it is states that impose car insurance mandates, under their general police powers — which the federal government lacks.

As Hudson said, "Despite the laudable intentions of Congress in enacting a comprehensive and transformative health care regime, the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds. Salutatory [sic] goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers."

[Maggie]

This type of “argument” by Holder and Sebelius is, in part, why this Virginia District Court Judge found the government’s position unpersuasive.

Health reform will survive its legal fight

[SubGod22]

I know I'm not some legal scholar, but even with as far out of the box that the federal gov't has been allowed to go over the years, I don't see/understand how this could ever hold up when it reaches the Supreme Court.

[RoyalShock]

This type of “argument” by Holder and Sebelius is, in part, why this Virginia District Court Judge found the government’s position unpersuasive.

Health reform will survive its legal fight

Oh, I get it. Since many of us are paying for it in the marketplace anyway, the federal gov't forcing it on everyone (who can afford it, whatever that means) is Constitutional.

And, it's Constitutional because it's not fair to some people if it isn't.

[Maggie]

As the op-ed makes clear, some people (Judges too) think the solution to every public issue is government intervention. And that the Constitution permits government involvement as long as there is some nexus to a perceived “public good” economically. In the health-care context they argue that the government has the right to do this because people become ill, and that does have economic consequences. And when someone without insurance gets sick those costs are transferred to others. So the only solution is to make it illegal not to have health insurance. Obviously, this means the government can do just about anything.

As an aside, I am especially fond of the implicit new definition of “individual responsibility” – which amounts to doing what the government tells you to do.

As for the Supreme Court if you have a full bench, it is painfully obvious that Justice Kennedy likely will be the deciding vote. However, Justice Kagan may have to recuse herself due to her service in Obama’s Justice Department (although during her confirmation hearing she refused to say what she would do so). If that happens even if Kennedy finds the mandate constitutional you would presumably have a 4-4 tie – which means the lower Court’s decision would stand.

[SubGod22]

House GOP Health Care Repeal Could Pick Up a Few Dem Votes

I know it doesn't much matter because it won't get thru the Dem controlled Senate, but it keeps this monstrosity in front of everybody.

[ISASO]

Isn't it in the best interest of the country for everyone to have the same size of house? Why should a retired couple have a 6-bedroom house in Florida while a family of 12 in Chicago is relegated to a 2-bedroom apartment?

[SubGod22]

Obamacare: An Unacquired Taste

Given that the latest Rasmussen poll shows that 60 percent of likely voters support repeal, Democrats might have an only slightly harder time convincing the public to pardon Osama bin Laden, and they continue to labor under the delusion that the problem with health-care reform isn't policy, but public relations. Americans oppose the health-care program because they don't understand it. Sooner or later, the thinking goes, they will find the magic words that will convince the public of how right the Democrats have been all along.

But given two years of almost continuous debate on the issue, it is far more likely that the public really does understand the bill. They know, for example, that, despite the president's reassurances, they are not going to be able to keep their current health insurance, even if they like it. They understand that outside experts now predict that Obamacare will cost at least $2.7 trillion over its first ten years of actual operation, not the $950 billion originally predicted, adding more than $350 billion to the deficit over that period, despite massive new taxes. They've seen their insurance premiums skyrocket in response to the law's new mandates and regulations. Their common sense tells them that imposing the employer mandate will increase the cost of hiring workers and mean fewer jobs at a time when unemployment is still a national crisis. They oppose the unconstitutional individual mandate as an assault on their personal liberty. And they are rightfully concerned over how the law will affect the quality of the care they receive.

That's not a situation likely to enhance Obamacare's popularity.

Sure, there are some consumer reforms in the bill that are at least superficially popular. But even those come with fine print. For example: Starting today, parents will be able to keep their children on their insurance plans until age 26. Democrats imply that that extended coverage is free. But, in reality, the Department of Health and Human Services estimates that it will cost an estimated $3,380 a year per child. And since employers are balking at picking up the added cost, the parents themselves will have to pay more if they want to continue their children's coverage. Democrats will also point out that insurers can no longer refuse coverage to children with preexisting conditions. True: And in response, insurers in Colorado, Ohio, and Missouri, among others, have stopped offering child-only insurance plans, depriving thousands of Americans of an inexpensive coverage option. Insurers are also prohibited from imposing annual or lifetime coverage limits. But this provision has proved so onerous that the administration has been forced to issue more than 100 waivers to prevent companies from dropping their employees' coverage altogether.

Democrats claim that they welcome a fight over repealing Obamacare. Republicans should welcome the opportunity to give them one.

[wu_shizzle]

And you thought it was about health care.

Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Obamacare

Next week, the U.S. House of Representatives will be voting on an historic repeal of the Obamacare law. While there are many reasons to oppose this flawed government health insurance law, it is important to remember that Obamacare is also one of the largest tax increases in American history.

[SFL]

"With Virginia and Oklahoma having separate suits of similar fashion, if the motion to add to the Florida suit is granted, the total number of states challenging the federal health care law would be 26."

http://www.mcphersonsentinel.com/state_news/x1334354138/New-AG-wants-state-to-join-health-care-suit

[SubGod22]

Health Law Looks Shaky; Abortion Fight Renewed; China Won’t Blink

You know you have an unpopular initiative on your hands when, as the AP poll suggests, having only a third of Americans passionately committed to its repeal and the nation evenly divided on the subject in general is considered good news. Hooray!

The poll number that really matters, though, is from the latest Gallup/USA Today survey. It shows only 13 percent of Americans like the law as it is written.

House Set to Launch Health Law Challenge

Clyburn predicted that an all-out repeal would go nowhere. But he indicated a willingness to "modify" parts of the legislation that could be improved.

"I believe that we all remember that when we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we had to modify three or four times -- it was done in a bipartisan way. Same thing with the Voting Rights Act. So let us modify the health care law in a bipartisan way. But this whole stuff of repealing it, throwing it out and starting all over, that's not going to happen," the South Carolina congressman said.

[1979Shocker]

Poll: Support for Healthcare Repeal Drops, but Opposition Remains

A new poll shows that support for repealing the contentious healthcare reform bill has dropped and only a minority of Americans oppose it.

An Associated Press-GFK poll, released Monday, found that only about 1 in 4 people support repealing the law. Opposition to the law is also down to 41 percent, compared to 47 percent of Americans that were against it after the November congressional election.

Support for the 2010 healthcare law is now at 40 percent, up from 38 percent after the November election.

The news comes as the Republican House leadership seeks to resume congressional business on Tuesday, which also means that Republicans are once again pushing forward a bill to repeal the healthcare law.

[Maggie]

Poll: Support for Healthcare Repeal Drops, but Opposition Remains

A new poll shows that support for repealing the contentious healthcare reform bill has dropped and only a minority of Americans oppose it.

An Associated Press-GFK poll, released Monday, found that only about 1 in 4 people support repealing the law. Opposition to the law is also down to 41 percent, compared to 47 percent of Americans that were against it after the November congressional election.

Support for the 2010 healthcare law is now at 40 percent, up from 38 percent after the November election.

The news comes as the Republican House leadership seeks to resume congressional business on Tuesday, which also means that Republicans are once again pushing forward a bill to repeal the healthcare law.

Two New Obamacare Polls Have High Numbers of Democrats, Misleading Questions

[SubGod22]

75% Want Health Care Law Changed

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. Voters want to change the law, while only 18% want it left alone. Those figures include 20% who want the law repealed and nothing done to replace it, 28% who want it repealed and then have its most popular provisions put into a new law and 27% who say leave the law in place but get rid of the unpopular provisions.

Most Still Favor Repeal of Health Care Law, Say It Will Increase Deficit

Support for repeal of the national health care law passed last year remains steady, as most voters continue to believe the law will increase the federal budget deficit.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 55% of Likely Voters favor repeal of the health care law, while 40% oppose repeal. Just 40% Strongly Favor repeal, matching the lowest level found since the health care bill became law. Thirty percent (30%) Strongly Oppose repeal.

Sixty percent (60%) of voters say the legislation will likely increase the federal deficit, while just 17% say it will reduce the deficit. Another 13% believe the law will have no impact on the deficit. Since the laws passage, the number of voters that expect the plan to increase the deficit has ranged from 51% to 63%.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) expect the cost of health care to go up under the new plan, which has also remained steady since the law's passage. Only 13% expect the cost of care to decrease under the plan while 22% say health care costs will remain about the same as they are now.

[ShockBand]

75% Want Health Care Law Changed

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. Voters want to change the law, while only 18% want it left alone. Those figures include 20% who want the law repealed and nothing done to replace it, 28% who want it repealed and then have its most popular provisions put into a new law and 27% who say leave the law in place but get rid of the unpopular provisions.

Most Still Favor Repeal of Health Care Law, Say It Will Increase Deficit

Support for repeal of the national health care law passed last year remains steady, as most voters continue to believe the law will increase the federal budget deficit.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 55% of Likely Voters favor repeal of the health care law, while 40% oppose repeal. Just 40% Strongly Favor repeal, matching the lowest level found since the health care bill became law. Thirty percent (30%) Strongly Oppose repeal.

Sixty percent (60%) of voters say the legislation will likely increase the federal deficit, while just 17% say it will reduce the deficit. Another 13% believe the law will have no impact on the deficit. Since the laws passage, the number of voters that expect the plan to increase the deficit has ranged from 51% to 63%.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) expect the cost of health care to go up under the new plan, which has also remained steady since the law's passage. Only 13% expect the cost of care to decrease under the plan while 22% say health care costs will remain about the same as they are now.

One question I've had throughout this is how many of us have any real inkling of what the health care bill really means and does, short of the firebomb soundbites from both sides of the aisle? I've tried my best to grasp it and found it challenging. If for no other reason that might be a good one to scrap it and start over with smaller legislation that focuses on specific issues that need attention. We DO need to do something, otherwise health care costs are going to just continue to strangle our paychecks.