Thread: Health Care Reform; States suing as unconstitutional

Touchy subject, I know. I am not giving an opinion for or against healthcare reform.

This post is purely intended as a discussion on the first state level reactions to the reform. Apparently both the state of Virginia and the state of Idaho are going to sue the federal gov arguing that mandated/forced purchase of healthcare violates the constitution's commerce clause. Apparently 30+ other states have said they would prepare some similar type of suit.

Also, apparently, never in the history of the U.S. until now has the U.S. government forced citizens to buy a product or a service.

It looks like it may get more interesting than it already has.

Any thoughts?

Chris L

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Also, apparently, never in the history of the U.S. until now has the U.S. government forced citizens to buy a product or a service.


Chris L

Someone always claims (and probably will here) "auto insurance", but auto insurance is not comparable. Only car owners are required to buy auto insurance and no one is required to buy a car.

As far as the "Commerce Clause," only time will tell how the Supreme Court might interpret the Constitution in this case. Who would have ever thought that a farmer growing wheat for his own use (Wickard v. Filburn) could be determined in violation of interstate commerce? Should an individual refuse to purchase a product, such as health insurance, how could they be in violation of interstate commerce? Especially if they haven't bought anything...

Will be interesting to watch this all unfold.

The last I heard the corporations owned the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by honedright

Someone always claims (and probably will here) "auto insurance", but auto insurance is not comparable. Only car owners are required to buy auto insurance and no one is required to buy a car.

As far as the "Commerce Clause," only time will tell how the Supreme Court might interpret the Constitution in this case. Who would have ever thought that a farmer growing corn for his own use could be determined in violation of interstate commerce? Should an individual refuse to purchase a product, such as health insurance, how could they be in violation of interstate commerce? Especially if they haven't bought anything...

Will be interesting to watch this all unfold.

Auto insurance is regulated at the state level, not federal. Wisconsin has a quasi requirement for auto insurance at best. Technically, if a Wisconsin citizen has the financial means to pay out of pocket for damages caused rather than purchase auto insurance, they don't need to buy auto insurance. Few people have such means, but many Wisconsinites believe it's just optional for them when in most (not all) cases it is required.

Chris L

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Auto insurance is regulated at the state level, not federal.

Understood. But many people just generalize and do not make this distinction for the auto insurance comparison argument. Regardless, the requirement by states to purchase auto insurance is the closest comparison, but not a good one as I pointed out above.

Your post brings out another point: you say that if a person can afford to pay for damages out-of-pocket, no auto insurance is required. Under the new health legislation, the same won't be true. Even if you can afford to pay for health services out-of-pocket, you will still be required to buy the national coverage. Therefore you are dinged twice. Wonder how that will fit into the constitutional/ not constitutional debate.

I'm glad you pointed it out. That will maybe save someone some keystrokes if they were thinking of using that as an argument.

Chris L

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I'm glad you pointed it out. That will maybe save someone some keystrokes if they were thinking of using that as an argument.

Chris L

Ha! Wishful thinking...

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Touchy subject, I know. I am not giving an opinion for or against healthcare reform.

This post is purely intended as a discussion on the first state level reactions to the reform. Apparently both the state of Virginia and the state of Idaho are going to sue the federal gov arguing that mandated/forced purchase of healthcare violates the constitution's commerce clause. Apparently 30+ other states have said they would prepare some similar type of suit.

Also, apparently, never in the history of the U.S. until now has the U.S. government forced citizens to buy a product or a service.

It looks like it may get more interesting than it already has.

Any thoughts?

Chris L

Depends on this:

Supreme Court Justice Retiring? - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

Ideologically, I believe he's in the center.

In the upcoming November elections, even if the Republicans sweep everything (highly unlikely) they still won't have enough votes to repeal this bill. Most people will likely forget the drama and put all of their elected representatives back anyway. 2012? More time passed, less likely to vote any more out. Americans have short memories.

So, if Stevens does get replaced, it will most likely be some far left radical and there will obviously be no potential to swing over to the conservative side for any decision.....for a long time now it's been about stacking the court to an ideology and not about interpreting the Constitution. I don't know exactly what the process is if there is something to be tried on Constitutional grounds, however I assume it goes directly to the Supreme Court (and I'm hoping someone will step in and enlighten us about how that process works). How long will it take? It will take a long time.

I'm pretty sure the show's over.

Originally Posted by CableDawg

I'm pretty sure the show's over.

"Say goodnight Dick..."

I have to say, my mind is blown.

We pay for public education, for everyone. Even the delinquents who don't want to learn and drop out without their diploma. And even the people who homeschool their kids pay for it.

We pay for Social Security, for almost everyone. They only need to have worked for 5 years of their entire lives to qualify for the bottom line. And even the people who never cash in pay for it.

We pay for these things, even for the people who may not have earned it or wanted it, because the vast majority of individuals HAVE earned it and DO want it, and to deny them those things because they might not be rich enough to pay for it themselves is wrong.

If education is a right, and retirement benefit is a right, then why isn't a person's life a right? Someone actually said health care is a "privilege." Seriously?

I'm not really saying this bill is that good - I don't think it is. I don't think it's going to fix all our problems. But as others have said, either we do it this way, make it universal, continue to pay out of our pockets for uninsured people to rack up huge ER bills, or we just let people die.

Those are the choices. Personally I say go universal, but obviously our culture isn't ready for that. How sad. It's cheaper, and more effective. America spends 2-3 times more on health care than any country with universal health care, and we have one of the lowest life expectancies.

We cling to this "every man for himself" idea when it comes to health care, like people still think they're living in the Sahara being chased by lions.

Well, if it's every man for himself, then you have no right to public education. You have no right to Social Security. You have no right to be protected by the police force, or the military, or the fire brigade.

Every man for himself.

And the idea of long-term, possibly life-long indentured servitude that would dictate the lives of millions, and steal jobs from millions more, while leaving huge holes in skilled professions, instead of just manning up and helping out our own people? Are you serious?

What ever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

In the modern age, where health care costs more than most normal people can afford, you can't run things like that unless you either want people to be slaves, or to die.

How dare people have the audacity to get sick. Is that what this is about?

And I'm tired of people complaining that those who can't get insurance are "lazy." Are you aware of what the minimum wage is? I've worked 60 hours a week and still barely been able to survive. Thank god I'm still young enough to be under my parent's plan.

And what about all the people with pre-existing conditions, who were basically told they can just go die? I have watched friends with life-long conditions trying to find a job in the depression.

But they aren't just looking for a job. They're in a race to save their own lives. Because if they don't have a job before their insurance expires, they're dead.

Some places in this country, right now, have 20% EMPLOYMENT. How many of those unemployed 4/5ths have a life-threatening illness and are currently writing their wills?

In a country where we have the capability to raise the standard of living for EVERYONE, to improve the quality of life and life span of EVERYONE, what sort of vicious greed would make someone say "no" to to that?

Everyone wants every kid in America to learn how to read. But no one wants to save their lives when they grow up and get sick because they're "lazy," working 9 hours a day and barely making it because the minimum wage still puts them below the poverty line.

My god. I need a cigarette.