Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

Originally Posted by mhailey

The commerce clause was created so that interstate trade would not be unduly constrained by State laws (like i said before, to avoid New York imposing a tariff against goods imported from North Carolina), not to nationalize an entire industry.

You do realize that there is no possible bill on the table now that is going to nationalize anything, right? Obama never even talked about such a thing since being elected. All the proposed system will do is set up a government-administered insurance company. The existing insurance companies will still exist. They will have a bit more oversight (no pre-existing condition restrictions, no recision of policies, no lifetime payout limits, etc.), but otherwise the government is doing exactly nothing to them.

I hope you didn't think I was calling your original question silly. It's important, very much so. I just don't see anything controversial in terms of constitutionality in the health care proposals floating around.

think about the impact of simply creating a government run insurance company. They don't have to worry about profit, they have an endless supply of capital (in theory), and there is no competition. Employers will cease to provide health insurance through private companies, and will simply pay the extra tax for the public option. For most people, with employer provided insurance, they will not be able to pay the entire premium of the health insurance themselves, and therefore the will be on the government system. (The partners at my firm are all for this take over of health care because the cost of employing their employees will substantially decrease, even if they are forced to pay the tax for not providing health insurance)

Plus if you want to simply keep your current insurance you will have to pay double. You will have to pay the taxes for the government run system, and then pay the premiums for the private insurance. Very few will do this, or be able to do this.

The talking points put forth by Obama are alway recited, but the actual impact of this plan is clearly a governmental take over of the health care industry. Look past the talking point, look past the media whitewashing of this take over.

Originally Posted by bromion

Well, considering the 10th amendment was added a number of years after the ratification of the constitution, it's completely reasonable that they are at odds. Not contradicted... but at odds.

The elastic clause is also quite clear. Perhaps you should read it again : ) Congress has the power to create departments and officers -- this statement indicates that it thus has the power to create laws that affect said departments and officers.

Since when is 4 a "number of years"? Especially when it was one of the amendments required to be written before the constitution would pass muster with all the states.

Congress has no power to do anything under this clause but enact laws to do the things the federal government is required to do by the rest of the constitution. Health care not being a delegated power of the federal government under the constitution is not something they should be messing with.

I just want to chime in again, after all this amendment discussion- wouldn't it be better to discuss whether healthcare is something we want or not, then amend the constitution thusly?

Arguing about what the framers wanted is stupid, they couldn't have predicted the state of the country 250 years later and they knew that, hence the amendment process. Just as the the Constitution allowed for slavery and barred anyone not white and male from voting, the Constitution might not be "right". It's supposed to be amended as needed, so to argue if something as large as a new government agency controlling socialized health care is Constitutional or not is silly.

Originally Posted by mhailey

The talking points put forth by Obama are alway recited, but the actual impact of this plan is clearly a governmental take over of the health care industry. Look past the talking point, look past the media whitewashing of this take over.

No need to preach about talking points here. Same on both sides! None of the rest of this has anything to do with the constitution....

Honestly, I dislike this health care proposal because it is NOT a single-payer system, which is the only logical health insurance option. I should be able to walk into any hospital, get any care the doctors think I need, and not have to pay more than a reasonable co-pay. Everything else covered by taxes (and the increase in taxes will no doubt be far less than the skyrocketing cost of premiums!). What could be simpler? What could be better? Private insurance companies are simply an inefficiency here... they have to make profit, and they do. Those profits come directly out of the money that should be going to someone's health care. As they provide no other service than to disburse money, why not do it ourselves, for free?

Alas, this will not come to pass. I don't see the proposed public option snowballing into a collapse of private insurance. For one, the really large companies will not have the option of dumping their insurance, and they are the cash cows for the insurance companies. Now, IF the public insurance company does manage to provide insurance with similar (or better) policies at a lower price, then corporations will have a firm footing to negotiate lower premiums. Will this cause the insurance companies to be less profitable? Certainly! But that is the nature of an efficient market. Right now, we have an INefficient market because the health insurance companies constitute a small oligopoly with opaque pricing. Oligopoly + information asymmetry = inefficiency (with all the extra surplus going to insurance company profits, not health care). Still, there will be plenty of profit left given that the big corporations will still have to buy private insurance for their employees.

Anyway, all in all, I predict that you have nothing to worry about. The "public option" will, at worst (or at best, as one may see it), bring down insurance premiums. Anything more is wishful thinking (me), or unnecessary worry (you) : )

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from FOD Team, Will Ferrell, Jon Hamm, Olivia Wilde, Thomas Lennon, Donald Faison, Linda Cardellini, Masi Oka, Ben Garant, Jordana Spiro, lauren, Drew, and chad_carter - Video

...health insurance companies are huge. They need to make big profits so they can afford to give their employees health insurance. Believe me, that stuff's not cheap!

Originally Posted by khaos

Arguing about what the framers wanted is stupid,

Why? Did the framers want something different from what you want?

Do you think that the framers were unconcerned with health?

Did you know that 3 of the framers (McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson) were physicians?

Of course they were worried about their personal health. But to use that as an argument pro-healthcare is a normative fallacy. Can you tell me if they thought that private insurance was better or government insurance? Did they even have a concept of wide spread insurance? (Remember, banking and financial affairs were not as developed, in depth, or red-taped as they are today)

Furthermore, did they want to make everyone pay, to insure a few? Did they want Congress to even have that power? No one knows! This is why we have the amendment process. Even they knew that in the future things would change, thats the reason the amendment process exists!

I hate to bring it up again, but lets talk slavery. Slavery, in my opinion, is the most basic example of LACK of healthcare. The original constitution allowed for the imprisonment, torture, and physical abuse of other human beings, UNTIL IT WAS AMENDED.

And to point out a flaw in your argument, do you think the framers would have wanted to be enslaved themselves? This could be, as it so often is with high minded politicians, a case of "not in my backyard". "This tax is good, so long as I don't pay it." "Wind turbines are good, so long as I don't see them." "Health care is important, so long as others are paying for it."

Originally Posted by honedright

Why? Did the framers want something different from what you want?

Do you think that the framers were unconcerned with health?

Did you know that 3 of the framers (McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson) were physicians?

Originally Posted by khaos

And to point out a flaw in your argument, do you think the framers would have wanted to be enslaved themselves? This could be, as it so often is with high minded politicians, a case of "not in my backyard". "This tax is good, so long as I don't pay it." "Wind turbines are good, so long as I don't see them." "Health care is important, so long as others are paying for it."

"Health care reform is good for all so long as we get to keep our health plans" The House, The Senate, The President.

Originally Posted by bromion

Private insurance companies are simply an inefficiency here... they have to make profit, and they do. Those profits come directly out of the money that should be going to someone's health care. As they provide no other service than to disburse money, why not do it ourselves, for free?

While we are off topic, this statement is what has me the most worried, and the fact that its twisted logic is resonating so soundly throughout the country. It comes down to the redistribution of wealth (communism).

By this logic, i should be able to walk into a grocery store and only pay a reasonable co-pay, because if health care is a right, then the provision of food should most certainly be a right (without health care i get sick, possibly die, without food I certainly die). Grocery stores are forced to turn a profit, and that profit should be going to provide someone else's food.

I should be able to walk into a clothing store and only pay a reasonable co-pay because without clothes i will catch a cold and get sick, and end up going to the nationalized healthcare. So, in an effort to provide better health care, we should nationalize the clothing industry. The clothing industry has to turn a profit, and that profit could be redistributed to provide clothing to another person.

I should be able to only pay a small co-pay for my electricity and natural gas bill, because without electricity and natural gas my house would not be heated, and I could not cook my food. Those darn utility companies have to turn a profit, and that profit could be used to provide electricity and natural gas to other people, so we need to nationalize those industries.

AND ON, AND ON, AND ON.

Pretty soon we will be calling each other Comrade.

This was off topic, and I apologize to myself for taking my thread off topic.

Matt