So the lawsuits start, and it's interesting.

[donco6]

It seems the basis for most of the suits against the Insurance Reform bill center on the requirement that you purchase a product. But we're required to buy products all the time, as individuals. Like car insurance. Or, if you're building a home, there's a MILLION things you're required to buy. Is that really that different? Is it because the Insurance bill is federal but those other requirements are state-driven? I'm confused.

But I wonder what their basis for lawsuit would have been had we gone single-payer? We already have Medicare. Where would they have gone, then? I'm sure they'd have thought of something, but I wonder what?

I'm not a big fan of the bill, as everyone knows, but I DO so much LOVE seeing the Republicans getting all apoplectic! HaHAHAHAHA! It does a body good.

[democrat_patriot]

1. Are they spending tax dollars for these lawsuits?

Should that not make teabagger's angry? Or is it OK if they spend tax dollars on stuff the teabagger's approve of?

If so, the Dem's need to hit them hard on this.

"The Republican Party has spent 30 million of your tax dollars trying to take away your health care".

[donco6]

2. Ah - yes, Axelrod I think mentioned this today.

It was on in the background, but I think he talked about how Republicans are now in the position of sueing to take something AWAY, which is a hard spot to be in.

[RedCloud]

14. Worry not what the tea baggers "think", only how much will it cost to treat them.

They are way beyond delusional and should have sought professional help many moons ago.

[chill_wind]

3. 10 states lined up to file already, Over 35 states have vowed

to fight the mandate provision..

CNN link:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.lawsuit/


Now that the “fight is finished” on Capital Hill, it’s heading out to the fifty states. Ten states, including Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama have all vowed to file suit, challenging the bill’s constitutionality.

The biggest complaint is over the part of the bill that requires Americans to purchase insurance, or else pay a fine. Some states have even started or completed legislation blocking federal mandates requiring individuals to purchase state insurance. Over 35 states have vowed to make such legislation.

http://cnmnewsnetwork.com/13917/states-sue-over-health-care-bill-passed-%E2%80%93-fight-for-health-care-not-over-yet/

[The Straight Story]

4. As pointed out many times now: being required to buy something solely because you exist different

than the examples given. You don't have to buy a car, home, etc.

[Mari333]

5. I pay for the post office, the public schools, the emergency services

I have no kids in school. I pay taxes for them anyway. I would rather my taxes do not go to pay for mercenaries and 2 occupations that use up over half the federal budget.

I am still on the side of people who are against mandated insurance, and hope that gets thrown out. I am holding out hope for single payer or a PO or even a medicare buy in.

right now the insurance companies will profit and have little regulation concerning costs. thats what worries me.

the door is open now, I would like to see a huge force for the PO. if not, Ill know it was a payoff.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. Maybe the lawsuits will force the public option.

Wouldn't THAT frost the rethug's balls.

I tend to agree with their position - albeit for different reasons. I believe if the government mandates that you purchase a service, they should provide it. Like schools, police fire etc.

[Mari333]

13. that would be grand

[spanone]

15. +1000

[WeDidIt]

6. You are NOT required to buy anything

Tax code is being used to promote social choices.

This is not different from promoting marriage by having a better tax schedule for married couples than for single people.

In fact, if the courts overturn this law on the basis of the arguments presented, then tax credits for children have to go, too, becuase those credits are designed to promote procreation.

[Pithlet]

17. Exactly. It's a tax. It's been called a mandate and that's what's throwing people off.

But no one is actually being mandated to buy anything. One can pay the tax if they choose. And you're right, overturning this law would have to change the law dramatically. It just isn't likely to happen.

[Statistical]

22. There have been numerous precedents that limit discriminatory taxation.

Govt ability to collect taxes is limited to equal protection clause.

Would you support a $10,000 tax per abortion? Abortions are still legal the govt is simply trying to encourage women not to have abortions by punitive taxation.

If the govt has the ability to punish in unlimited fashion via taxation than no other form of equal protection in meaningful.


This is a major reason I think a banker bonus tax would be a waste of time as it likely would be found Unconstitutional. Note I think rich should pay more taxes but it should be done the right way. Raise the marginal tax rates of 2 highest income brackets.

[Pithlet]

23. How is it discriminatory if it applies to everyone?

And per your abortion example, there is a difference between bad policy, and unconstitutional. Like I've said before in other threads on this discussion, "I don't like it" does not equal unconstitutional. No, I wouldn't support it. But unconstitutional? Not sure about that.

[Statistical]

24. It is discriminatory.

If I have a good job I likely have option for good insurance and I likely take than option.

If I have bad job I likely have choice of no insurance or crappy insurance or insurance I can't afford.
Now I am being forced to select one of those suboptimal choices or face discriminator taxation.

If everyone had access to same level of quality insurance (robust public option with subsidies based on income) than a mandate MAY be constitutional.

To pretend the current healthcare reform isn't discriminator against people with less options is silly. It pretends the world is a happy carefree place where everything works perfectly and nobody falls through the cracks.

[Pithlet]

25. No. It applies equally to everyone. Everyone faces the same exact tax. Your logic fails.

Using your logic, sales tax would be unconstitutional, since only people with jobs and money can afford to buy things. Gee, that's discriminatory!

[Matariki]

30. It's called a poll tax or head tax - look it up

It IS unconstitutional in that the 24th amendment prohibits it.

Think medieval times when the tax collector came around and demanded the same payment from everyone - wealthy merchant or poor dirt farmer without a coin to his name. Guess which person couldn't pay and had to go to prison?

Can you understand why imposing a tax on every single person living in a country - no matter what their income - is really an unfair burden on the poor? See why earlier generations had the good sense to prohibit it?

[Roland99]

7. Those other items (car insurance, building permits, etc.) are STATE requirements, not FEDERAL.

THAT'S the difference.

[Statistical]

8. Delegated vs. Reserved Powers.

The federal govt has never before mandate purchase of private goods. Never.

The federal govt is delegated certain powers. If they don't have that power they can't act. This is why in order to collect income tax the 16th amendment needed to be passed.

The 10th amendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Anything not delegated to federal govt is reserved by the States. The only delegated power the federal govt has that even comes close is the Commerce Clause in Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
(The Congress shall have power) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

The federal govt MUST have delegated power to take any action no matter how trivial or it is unconstitutional. Regulating insurance is one thing. If I buy insurance I am obviously involved in commerce and that transaction can be regulated. If I don't buy insurance is that commerce. Can via the commerce clause the govt regulate "non-commerce"?

Ironically single payer wouldn't be subject to this lawsuit (like Repukes would have tried something else).

[donco6]

26. Yes, ironic is the word

Could this lead to a demand for single payer, once people realize what they deserve and are being denied?

[mikelgb]

9. Why Car Insurance mandate is nothing like Health insurance mandate:

Everyone is born with a mortal fragile body that will get sick at some point.

A car is a choice. For the privelige of driving your car on the public roads society requires that you be able to pay for any accidents.

No one is ever required to buy anything.

[RedCloud]

16. But as your car decreases in value, they stick you for higher bills.

Same with houses as the value has decreased.

Insurance compnaies can easily transfer those "rape" increases to the health care buddies and sometimes is the same freaking jerk, and pass the cost of their inhumane propaganda onto us.

[Orsino]

10. It's really that different.

Not everyone owns a car, or builds a house, and the requirements you mentioned are indeed state, not federal.

[chill_wind]

11. Anti-Health Care Reform Suits Face Steep Hurdles

Not All Opponents Confident of Repeal

http://washingtonindependent.com/80050/anti-health-care-reform-suits-face-steep-hurdles

[thucythucy]

18. I wonder about the unintended

consequences of these lawsuits. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, these suits go all the way to the Supreme Court, which declares the mandate provision of HC reform unconstitutional. I haven't read the complete act, but I assume there is a "severability clause" in the act, since "severability" is pretty much boiler-plate in legislation of this type. For those who may not know, "severability" is a clause that says if any portion of the act is found unconstitutional, it is automatically severed from the rest of the act, which then continues in force.

I think it's pretty well acknowledged that Congress has the right to regulate insurance companies under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. So, all the parts of the bill forbidding the use of pre-existing conditions, life-time caps, etc., will remain in place.

Now, the ostensible reason for the mandate is that if you're going to forbid pre-existing conditions, then you need a mandate to make private insurance economically viable. This is why, for instance, there is such a mandate in Germany and Switzerland, both of which have private insurers (though Germany also has a public option). Basically, the mandate is to keep people from buying insurance only AFTER they get hit by a truck or get diagnosed with cancer. Indeed, if the mandate is dropped, but not the other clauses, I would expect great numbers of people who currently have private insurance as individuals to drop it,knowing if push comes to shove they can't be refused at whatever point they choose to sign up.

The unintended consequence would be, I would think, a huge financial loss to the private insurance sector.

One possible outcome: an enormous spike in premiums for everyone else to cover the costs of newly injured or ill people signing up for expensive treatments, without having paid any previous premiums, leading to an even greater crisis in access, followed by increased pressure for a public option, not only by progressives (such as myself) but from the insurers themselves, hoping to staunch the hemmoraging of their profits. In other words, the teabeggers and assorted right wingers bringing these suits to fight "socialized" medicine, may in fact bring on far more pressure for a public option or (my particular favorite) a Medicare buy-in than anything we've seen up till now.

This is of course just wild speculation on my part, of the "what if..." variety. In any case, it'll be interesting to see if the insurance lobby mobilizes to fight these lawsuits.

[thucythucy]

19. Another consequence

of the even greater spike in premiums after the success of the suits would be, of course, the discrediting of health care reform in general and Democrats in particular, which is no doubt what the GOP is hoping.

For me one test will be whether insurers file amicus briefs in support of these suits. If they do, then they're probably not worried about the unintended consequence outlined above. If they don't, then the GOP might be walking into yet another dead end.

Best wishes to all.

[Statistical]

21. Why would insurance companies file briefs in support of lawsuit.

What company would support action that would remove mandate for millions of forced customers.

If I sold widgets and Congress mandated everyone must buy a widget from me why would I want to see that mandate (forced revenue stream) go away?

[Statistical]

20. Another FUN outcome is it forces a public option.

A mandate for public option wouldn't suffer same constitutional challenge. Of course passing public option would require new legislation and 60 votes in Senate.

The mandate could say something like show proof of:
a) credible coverage
b) self insurance (bond, assets to pay for medical expenses not at taxpayer expense)

anyone with neither would be enrolled in public option with premiums deducted from payroll (and subsidies for low income families).

The irony is the insurance companies will then be begging, crying, screaming for Republicans to support a public option which can be mandated. Without it they would be destroyed by lack of "pre-existing coverage" exclusion. :)

It would be the most hilarious 180 ever.

[thucythucy]

31. Exactly!

Thank you Statistical for putting it so succinctly.

[girl gone mad]

28. The mandate won't keep insurers from dropping coverage..

or jacking up premiums after someone gets ill. It simply can't. The fines would have to be at least 10 times higher for that to even begin to make sense.

[Matariki]

27. Yes it really is different.

Unbelievable that this argument keeps going on. It is NOT like car insurance. For the 1000th time.

All examples you give are requirements of other voluntary purchases. Mandated health insurance is required simply for existing. Like an unconstitutional poll tax, but much, much worse.

Even worse is using the IRS as an enforcement tool for a private industry.

[donco6]

29. Ok ok I've been flogged enough

I get it. I appreciate the helpful responses.