Lis Wiehl tries to explain the Commerce Clause to O'Reilly on The Factor last night because the new talking point of the health care insurance companies...Republicans...FOX News...BillO the teabagger is just that, but he can't handle the truth, dammit. Bill, it's not lawyers that are the problem just because Wiehl interpreted it the way you hate.
It's this idiot op ed by two people that worked for Bush and Reagan that are saying individual mandates are unconstitutional and causing the real "nuts" to go off the deep end. And you can be sure that the rest of the right wing loons will be jumping aboard the crazy train with him.
Wiehl: Article one in the Constitution says the Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. That is anything that goes from one state to another.
O'Reilly: So what?
Wiehl: Health care itself may be local, your doctor may be in your state but medical supplies come to you the medical equipment, all of the things...
O'Reilly: Why can they make you buy anything?
Wiehl: Because they can regulate interstate commerce. Those things go through interstate, they can force you to...
O'Reilly: OK, I want the audience to know that this is total BS. This is why people hate lawyers, this is nuts. {} The government is saying you have to buy health insurance. You have to do it. I'm saying that's unconstitutional. The federal government doesn't have the power to force an American to buy anything.
The Supreme Court over the years has used this Clause on many, many rulings. We had to buy George W Bush, Bill. Oh, you liked him---never mind. That was a different clause.
Balkinization would love to debate these two: The Inevitable Conservative Argument that Health Care Reform is Unconstitutional
You see, Rivkin and Casey think that a federal requirement that uninsured individuals must purchase health insurance can't be within Congress's commerce power because when ordinary individuals don't purchase health insurance, their mere failure to do so has no effects (economic or otherwise) on interstate commerce.
The otherwise uninsured would be required to buy coverage, not because they were even tangentially engaged in the "production, distribution or consumption of commodities," but for no other reason than that people without health insurance exist. The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there.
Got it? When people don't buy things, by definition it doesn't affect commerce! (For example, during recessions people stop buying things and everyone knows that has no economic effects.) On the other hand, Rivkin and Lee begin their op-ed by arguing that "[w]ithout the young to subsidize the old, a comprehensive national health system will not work." This sounds to me like a claim that the number of people who buy health insurance affects the ability of private insurance companies to sell health insurance at a profit. So again, why is it that failure to purchase health insurance does not affect interstate commerce?
No it's not O'Reilly. Read the damn bill. It's called a public OPTION for a reason. I'm ashamed to say that I graduated from the same college as him (Marist) b/c he's so friggen moronic.
Can't the Kennedy school revoke his degree?
Marist College in Poughkeepsie, NY
NO,, It is more like Fox news and the republicans have become unconsitutional...and there is another item to add to their resume which is criminal.
None
I once sent him an e-mail asking him to stop mentioning that he went to Marist, that it made the rest of us graduates look bad. And that he was too stupid to have gone there. In the 70's, Marist was a blue collar college, and he sited it to show his humble, 'I was a poor kid' cred's.
He sent me an e-mail telling me to go f*** myself. I wrote back saying that that proves that he was too stupid to have gone to Marist because had he gone, he would have known that that was anatomically impossible.
called the public option, but there was a clause in at least one of the bills, that required you to have insurance, through your work, another private insurance or through the public option. You would be forced to purchase insurance whether you wanted it or not, or face penalties.
How is being required to have health insurance really any different than living in the U.S. where the the public transportation has been intentionally made either non-existent or inadequate thereby forcing people to buy automobiles which by law must have insurance?
are not required to purchase a car, while it may be necessary for you, there is nothing legally requiring it. And I have known several people that have never owned a car or held a drivers lic., there was one little old lady in my town(virtually no public transportation)who hadn't rode in a car for 20-30 years she would refuse rides from everyone including her family. She walked everywhere she went. And yes she could of afforded one.
He said that there are exemptions to requiring insurance. If you can't afford insurance, then you're qualified for Medicade anyways, which is the same way it is now.
So this where all our hard work over the centuries has led us huh?
and now The Truth About Devolution can be told to every man, woman, child and mutant...
Bill sounds like a man who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He jumped into the deep end of this pool too soon and now he looks silly floundering around.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
... after all this is the man who made a career claiming Clinton's blowjob to be the worst attack on the US constitution ever.
Jack Kennedy hitting on a mafia moll was a worse attack on the constitution but it was covered up.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
..scum looking for a pond?
A flounder looking for a bay?
A jellyfish looking for a spine?
Wow - a bor two-fer! This is going to be a good day!
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
Beck has taken all the simple stupid stuff to bark about so Bill's having to go to the more involved attacks and he needs to brush up on his knowledge before he does that.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Article I, Sec 8 cl 3:
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
So you're beef is not with lawyers, but with our Founding Fathers.
Why does billo hate America?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
(Snark)
.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
Damn. Beat me to it.
Auto Insurance is required by law. Whats so different?
States require auto insurance. I wouldn't be surprised if federal highway funds were dependent on that, but it isn't a direct requirement.
Auto insurance is NOT required! UNLESS you want to drive a car. It's not tied to the Commerce Clause but to state vehicle laws.
It would be that driving is a privilege that is subject to regulation and licensure, while health care is a Human Right? They are not equivalent.
There have been court cases that have came down on both sides of the driving right v privilege debate. I'll see if I can find some, but from what I've read they are now leaning more towards its a right, based in part on the right to liberty and interstate travel.
And while heath care may be a right, it like some other rights may be limited by what you can afford ie Free speech can you afford to stand on the street corner or can you afford to print a newspaper, or a television/radio station. Or is it the Govt responsibility to provide you with the printing press or station?. Right to bear arms is the Govt required to provide you with such? Or do you have to purchase them yourself and get what you can afford? Or in the case of interstate travel, yes it is a right but it depends on what you can afford, shoe leather, a Hyundai, Mercedes, first class airfare etc.
It does seem to be the most stretched and abused sentence in the history of law. I like the public option because it turns the mandate into an optional tax. You must pay a tax for health care. If you choose, you can pay a private company for that care and then be exempt from the tax. Of course, the fed would rather call it commerce than taxation.
And of course, O'Reilly is still an annoying gasbag.
Eh, I figure the Founding Fathers knew that it would be necessary to regulate dealings between the states...don't forget that they really didn't trust the populace all that much (hello Electoral College). I think they meant the clause to be stretched to fit unforseen situations.
"Eh, I figure the Founding Fathers knew that it would be necessary to regulate dealings between the states...don't forget that they really didn't trust the populace all that much (hello Electoral College). I think they meant the clause to be stretched to fit unforseen situations."
The Commerce Clause was intended to permit the federal government to regulate dealings between the states in order prevent the laying of undue tarriffs. It was not initially envisioned to regulate commerce to the degree presently accepted and understood to be within congressional power. The modern understanding of the reach of the Commerce Clause begins with the Supreme Court's 1942 decision in Wickard v. Filburn. In that case, the Court held that an act may be "local" yet "still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. . . ." This understanding of the Commerce Clause remained pretty much intact over the next several decades. Indeed, the Commerce Clause was instrumental in the passage of laws prohibiting segregation at private facilities during the Civil Rights era. See, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (holding that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to fight discrimination). The Court retreated to a less expansive reading of the Commerce Clause in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), holding that Congress did not have the power to make laws concerning the imposition of penalties for gun-related offenses in school zones.
O'Reilly, of course, is woefully uninformed, and his "understanding" of the Constitution is deficient. The federal government can require and prohibit a lot of things through application of the Commerce Clause.
"The Commerce Clause was intended to permit the federal government to regulate dealings between the states in order prevent the laying of undue tarriffs. It was not initially envisioned to regulate commerce to the degree presently accepted and understood to be within congressional power."
Your second sentence is the problem. An overreaching congress and a enabling supreme court. While I usually(almost never)go along with the "original intent" reading of the constitution, this is one that I do to a degree. I don't believe that that clause was intended to give them power over virtually every part of our lives. Can you name anything that does not travel interstate or effect interstate commerce(other than land)? The majority of the original Constitution was intended at limiting the Fed Govt why would they include something that would give them carte blanche over every part of our lives?
Oh and Miss_lola the reason for the electoral college was not because they distrusted the people, it was because back in that time, very few of the populace had a chance to see and hear the candidates or their views, so they made it so the people could vote for people who would vote they way they would. Sorry for the contorted explanation I can't think of a better way to put it.
Actually they did fear the people and what they called "mobocracy," legislation by whoever could create the biggest mob.
Aristotle also distrusted democracy, considering it selfish. He preferred Constitutional Monarchy (according to his Nichomachean Ethics in his initial discussions of the Golden Mean). The Founding Fathers did him one better (and the Magna Charta that primarily protected the aristocracy from the Crown), by establishing a Constitutional Democracy.
The voting franchise was reserved to only white men who owned property, and they probably wouldn't recognize someone with a mortgage as an owner.
When the senators were initially appointed by State legislatures, they were in effect a new version of the old aristocracy, but balanced out by the much bigger House.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Well, I graduated from the same college as horse-face Coulter, so I'm 2x as embarrassed.
Anyway, if I remember correctly Article 1, Section 8.18 gives congress the power to make laws to enforce the other 17 powers that they were granted, so depending on your interpretation of Section 2 (I think that's the Commerce Clause) it may be 3, they have the power to do exactly what they want with Interstate Commerce.
End of line...
that prevents those who want to exercise it from doing so, while at the same time the regulation compels you to you buy insurance from one of the insurance companies, then this douchebag my actually have a point.(Good God, I just puked in my mouth). But, by him making that argument, he is implicitly acknowleging that the insurance companies do, in fact, suck ass, and he is also, seeming of necessity, implicity supporting a public option. I'm certain he didn't mean to do that, but he can't make his argument without also making implicit arguments. Poor ole Billo, got himself caught in a double bind.
It's the insurance companies and the Congressional Rethugs and right wing Dems like Baucus that are pushing the forcing people to buy worthless insurance products thing. If they do push that through without a STRONG public option there's going to be a revolt. Much simpler to just go with a reform bill that expands Medicare to cover all Americans. HR676 or bust!
You said the magic words: HR-676. For the life of me I can't figure out why we are not in the streets by the 10's of millions with torches and pitchforks demanding HR-676 or the like.
The insufferable douche-bag is operating under the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" syndrome and "twice" is giving him too much credit, but... behind the curtain in typical faux fashion, they are trying to swing the "debate" over to "the public option" being "affordable health care for all" (just so long as you buy it from one of our insurance companies so we can go back to denying your claims and upping your premiums next year.) A nice circular strawman that I could argue isn't constitutional under either Commerce Clause or Dormant Commerce Clause legal theory. Still, the best argument is single payer financed with taxes. Totally constitutional and HR 676 sounds close but still not quite there. I will take it though. Absolutely.
CNN had an article over the weekend touting the "success" of "Romneycare" in Massachusetts, which involved mandated insurance. Of course, other articles point out the failures of mandated insurance (as has been pointed out with mandated auto insurance as well).
I want the ability, the option if you will, to purchase a duplicate of Medicare, but I don't want anyone mandating that I get any type of coverage.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
Here's an idea! People want health insurance right?! Let's FORCE them to buy private, overpriced, shitty insurance even though the only reason they've never had it to begin with is they can't afford it! Wow what a great idea! Problem solved!
Truth is, if something like this becomes law, it will likely do nothing to control costs to reasonable levels, even if some compromise is struck with insurance companies to lower their ever swelling profits slightly. For me, the moral repugnance of such a law would be sickening, even if an optional public option is brought in along side it. No one should be forced to buy anything from a private company, especially companies that make profits by denying claims to our sick and vulnerable.
We all want health care? Fine. Make it a full government program like most other industrialized countries have done. (Why does Obama refuse to push for this?) Also make it so the government can control costs. Lacking this, the next best thing would be a public option to at least force insurance companies to lower their rates and expand their coverage. But the idea of a mandate is sickening if it is not a public program. If such a mandate becomes law, it will be one of the rare instances where individuals are forced by government to hand over their hard earned dollars directly to corporations under penalty of law.
From what I have read, a mandate to buy insurance will probably be what comes down the pike (if anything). O'Reilly aside, mandated insurance is a lousy idea. Even with some government subsidies for those with low-incomes, it amounts to an extremely regressive tax and the product you are forced to buy is defective. People will hate it (with good reason) and it will set back any real health reform for years.
I can see no route to reconciling the health-care needs of the populace with for-profit insurance corporations who have one and only one legal responsibility: to maximize returns to their shareholders. Every claim paid diminishes profits. Every claim denied increases profits. Their legal responsibility to their shareholders sets up an intractable conflict of interest. That these corporations are seen by Obama as part of the solution to the very problems they've caused mirrors the policy of Obama of looking to Wall Street firms for solutions to the financial crisis. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Matt Taibbi has an excellent article in the current Rolling Stone (not sure if online yet) about the legislation making its way through the sausage factory called Congress. The insurance and drug industries come out winners whether it passes or not. The public is on the losing end whether it passes or not.
It's a mistake to think something is good just because a blowhard like O'Reilly says its bad. We'll see what the final bill looks like, but I'm not very optimistic. And whatever plan passes, it is not supposed to be implemented until 2013. This will let the Demos trot around, patting themselves on the back for 'reforming healthcare' and nobody will get to see what that actually means until after the next presidential election.
The fact that the Democratic Party, with overwhelming majorities in Congress and possession of the Executive branch cannot solve a problem that every industrial nation on earth solved long ago demonstrates how corrupt and ineffectual our "democracy" has become. Not a pretty picture.
That's why I am wondering why so called "progressives" are wanting to mandate health insurance.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
I agree. It's a little disconcerting to see the ideas of Mitt Romney being applauded by anybody on the "left". Seems Bill O'Reilly is sometimes useful in manipulating 'progressives' as well.
As much fun as it is to ridicule buffoons like O'Reilly, and fully realizing that the Republicans and their increasingly violent fringe are becoming more Brownshirt-like by the day, the fact remains that the Democrats are the ones with the power right now. If they push Romney-care on the nation, it will be loathed by working people (after 2013 of course) and the fault will lie with the party, not with the Republicans and not with Fox News.
This is a real test to see if our supposed "left" party, in full possession of the power they need to fix what's broken, are capable at this point of bucking their benefactors and delivering the goods. I am not hopeful.
The simplest solution to this problem is of course staring them in the face. Expand Medicare to include everyone. Negotiate for drugs, and kill the private health care insurance industry which has proven itself to be dangerous to the health and welfare of the citizenry. Pay for all this with taxes. Taxes would be progressive and would apply to all income (wages and capital gains). Just as fire protection was once provided by private companies and that system was found to be unworkable, health care must be a public good, available to all. Profit and health care don't mix.
These morons twist the constitution and only apply the parts that they like to fit their way. I think it also applies to the Bible (delusion), have you ever wondered how many translations and interpretations the bible has had? If God was so smart he would've used Math instead....once you learn it cannot be refuted 1+1 will always =2 and there cannot be any other interpretation.
=2
Additionally the Constitution only guarantees the form government and policy will take, not the form of economics it will follow like capitalism, although it does protect private property, but in such a way that it often serves as "technicalities" that release alleged criminals, much to the aggravation of conservatives..
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The right to not be dumb and ignorant.
I know there are many variations of the health care bill floating around Congress right now, and at this point it appears that whatever passes will be great for the Insurance Co's, but can someone explain to me why the government can force me to purchase something that I do not want to buy? And somehow trying to tie not purchasing insurance (not participating in commerce whatsover)to the commerce clause is such a stretch as to be laughable.
food or clothing because they cost too much but for me to be a functioning member of society I feel that I must. If you have healthcare insurance and you get sick or injured, after healing, you may be able return to be a functioning member of society. Without the healthcare, it could happen that you won't.
I can grow my own food and make my own clothing. I am not forced to buy either. Not the same thing.
I would like to see what you are doing to accomplish that in todays world.
I choose, however, to purchase them.
if you get seriously injured or sick, can you heal yourself too?
And I pay out of pocket when I utilize these specific services. Although we digress, my inital question was how can the commerce clause be used to force me to buy something that I don't want to buy. Still waiting on that...
It may come down to "out of pocket" going to insurance rather than piecemeal payments.
With insurance, you can for example, grab an MRI instead of just an X-Ray.
(airline headphones included at no additional charge)
that the insurance company will actually pay for either an MRI or an X-ray. Being compelled to purchase insurance gives no assurance that the purchase will actually turn onto delivered healthcare.
explaining why you should have coverage. You said that you could provide for yourself. My quesstion is, if you have a serious case of cancer, are you going to pay all of the costs of treatment out of pocket?
"“Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.”
Barry Goldwater 1964
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
why one should have coverage, and I understand why insurance exists. What I don't understand is why I should be forced to purchase it utilizing the commerce clause as a justification for doing so.
The clip is from Fox, so we don't know that the commerce clause would be used.
Best I could afford would be the free medical weed.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
put it nicely when he mentioned that in his younger days, his health insurance consisted of Excedrin PM and a can of Colt 45.
... here's the answer:
The Commerce Clause argument is a red-herring that throws everyone into a tailspin. That includes Lis Wiehl (good talker, but lousy lawyer) who responded to Bill-O, in the opening article, by mouthing an incorrect "legal analysis" that she found on the internet.
A fundamental rule of law in this country, so fundamental that it's not even written into the Constitution, is this: The government cannot force you to take title to something that you do not want.
Example: You buy a car (take title to it) because you want it. The government can then force you to pay taxes on it, and to buy insurance on it. If you're caught without license plates or without insurance, you can be jailed and fined.
Example: You grow some corn (that is, you own it -- have title to it) and sell it. The government can, by force if necessary, tax the corn and tax the sale.
That's mostly Commerce Clause stuff. So ...
Now ask yourself, what if the government could MAKE me buy something (take title to it). The answer is that the government could then tax that thing, and make me pay the tax until I'm in the poor house (because I can't get rid of the damn thing, the government is making me keep title to it). Eventually, the government would have to jail me for being broke and not paying the tax. It's a formula for disaster.
Therefore, basic principle of law: You can't be forced to buy anything. O'Reilly happens to be correct on this, and brought on the attractive but shallow (and wrong) Lis Weihl as a hapless punching-bag. He can stay on the right side his rant, while muddying up the water and frightening everyone with the Commerce Clause boogey man.
Again, the government cannot force you to buy anything you don't want. The government can only tax things that you have voluntarily taken possession of (like, say, your paycheck), and then use the money to offer various services. Like medicare. Or a public option.
My own belief is that we'll get the public option. Sure, we'll pay some payroll tax on it, but overall it will be far less expensive than our current insurance system. Meanwhile, look how O'Reilly has gotten everyone here stirred up and arguing nonsense -- gotta drag in the Constitution, doncha know ...
And finally, an intelligent answer. That was my understanding as well. However, if you read the link to Balkenization, as well as the thread at Think Progess, they seem to think that the commerce clause can be used to force the purchasing of health insurance. Which was really the bases of my question.
for awhile. The Commerce Clause argument draws 'em in because they can argue about the Constitution forever.
The right-wing game is to keep us all distracted and off course. And we keep getting sucked in, responding to their (false) arguments.
I wish to hell that Obama would start talking facts and keeping us straight. Maybe he is biding his time as a matter of political strategy. Hope so.
One thing on the you can grow corn comment, while not corn the Govt used the commerce clause to restrict a farmer from growing wheat for his own use. The logic behind it was that if he grew it for his own use, he wouldn't have to buy it, so he therefore was effecting interstate commerce, and the supreme court upheld it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
. . . . but it can levy a tax for that service, which effectively would prompt everyone to take advantage of it.
In Wickard, a farmer argued that a federal law regulating wheat production was unconstitutional because it purported to prevent him from growing wheat intended solely for home consumption, thus placing his production beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected the farmer's argument, holding that Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a significant effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects were minimal. In this case, the farmer's consumption of home-grown wheat meant that he would not have to purchase wheat in the marketplace, a circumstance which, applied over thousands of farmers, was certain to affect interstate commerce.
The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) regulates all commerce between states. Where is the headquarters of your insurance provider and do they sell insurance in other states; if so they fall under FCC Regulations? Most obvious If you pass a 18 wheeler on the highway note the ICC number stenciled on the cab.
Look at seat belt laws and drinking age laws passed by Congress and many more. Included in those laws are clauses forcing states to enforce those laws or lose Federal Tax Revenues.
As the old saying goes, "There's more than one way to skin a catfish."
Donaldd
If I am not participating in commerce, how can the commerce clause be used to force me to purchase something.
If I chose to ride a bike instead of use a car, I don't have seatbelt laws. If I chose not to drink, I am not forced to abide by drinking age laws.
But depending on the state, you might be required to wear protection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyJyHcVFS4M&fe...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
in any State You're In .
Hey, if it was used to bypass the Constitution to ban some drugs (unlike what had to happen with banning alcohol) , then it can be bent, twisted, pounded, squeezed, smelted, reforged, etc. into whatever shape the ruling party says it must be...whether it should be or not.
...the Constitution that our Founding Fathers poured their blood sweat and tears into. The very Constitution that is the source of everything that is good and true about our America, the REAL America.
Bill, why do you hate America so?
I thought the previous administration set the precedent that when the Constitution interferes with the president's wishes then the Constitution be damned (can anyone say "4th Ammendment"?)
all it takes is all of us
This is why people hate lawyers...
Methinks this speaks volumes about Billo and why he is so hateful -- his dad probably abused him everyday about the fact that he didn't become something useful with his life like a lawyer...
I bet it really chapped his dad's hide when Billo was an anchor on that oh-so-classy Inside Edition, talking about surfing dogs and rapping grandmas.
Where it says Congress is charged with providing for the defense and welfare of the United States?
I would think that would be a much more powerful passage than headin to the old Commerce clause again. Let's try something new. Let's have people fight over the intention and meaning of the word "welfare" as used by the Founding Fathers. I could use the entertainment.
End of line...
I doubt billo is kvetching about the required purchase of insurance, which insurance companies favor, only the public option which insurance companies don't favor, since the government would essentially become the too big corporation they strive to be, so they can become too big to fail, and require future bail-outs.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
8.1 is the power to borrow money.
And the general welfare clause has been held (I believe) to mean the uses they can use their powers for, otherwise under the defense section of the clause there would be no need for sec 8.10-8.15
Will they be mandated into health care too? Will they be required to take a shower every 45 days?
showers every 45 days....whether they need one or not
all it takes is all of us
If he and I could have swapped places in 1970, me in college and him in Vietnam, he might understand the power of the state a lot better.
Perhaps, he could enlist and go to Afghanistan if he thinks that the small person has a hope against the american war machine and the crooked politicians that support it.
Weren't we all involved?
It's a matter of degree. When breakfast is ham and eggs, the chicken is involved. The pig is committed.
Falafel King: "It's a witchhunt!"
No asshat, special "persecutor" Ken Starr's going after Clinton over a sexual relation when he was appointed for Whitewater for which he couldn't find anything was a witchhunt. This is justice.
Surrender your liberties or you'll be killed!!!!!!
Sorry Falafel King. Scare-mongering works with your bedwetting viewers but not with brave thinking Americans who want justice served.
when the former administration wanted to mandate a federal ID? oh wait let me guess, the fed was gonna hand those out free right?
health care protect privacy while our social security numbers become human tracking numbers?
Will prospective employers be able to use FOIA to check on us first?
and Google.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
"Bill O'Reilly freaks"
Is that a surprise? He's a very joyless man. I feel sorry for his kids. Can you imagine living with him?
Finnigan posted this link earlier but many seemed to miss it. You will want to bookmark it for leisurely FOX pleasure.
http://trueslant.com/jeffhoard/2009/08/25/fnc...
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Actually, the forcing people to buy health insurance bit came from Mitt Romney and was seen as a Republican idea. You know, have the State force you to be a customer of the insurance industry. It's funny that the Right is now attacking their idea.
This is different than the public option, which I totally support.
the cost of maintaining the nations health would be less because there would be a broader array of therapy available to each patient.
And
with present economic trends, the cost of visits etc. is leveraged upward in quality rather than allowing Wall Street to determine the public's health too (eg quarterly economic profit trends).
The InterState Commerce Clause is how the Feds forced The South to desegregate.
O'Reilly hasn't a clue.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
And what pushed the fed was business men who saw the black entrepreneurs and realized there was money to be made in their neighborhoods, and thus ended the era of the minority entrepreneur, at least for awhile.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Here are some conservative lawyers arguing that the Commerce Clause does not permit a mandate:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
They are arguing that the individual is not engaged in commerce by merely existing. That would be distinct from, I suppose, an auto insurance requirement, since a person doesn't need to own a car.
That would leave the taxing option (buy it or we will tax you), which they attempt to deflect somewhat amusingly by a 1922 case that disapproves of taxing child labor. That looks a little suspect to me. Also, there are plenty of apparently well informed comments that seem to find their analysis laughable.
It seems to me that there are smart people who can figure out ways around this. The easiest way is to let the states do the heavy lifting. The tax or regulation can be imposed by the states, and federal monies withheld from the states that do not impose the regulation. Lots of people in the comments make this suggestion. That's how the federal government imposed the drinking age.
And/or the regulation can be tied to numerous federal benefits. This is, again somewhat comically, rejected by these conservatives because it will not acheive universal coverage...suddenly 95% isn't good enough for these guys.
Bottom line: this is almost certainly not a much of a problem.
When I watch Beck and O'Reilly, I weep for my country.
Doesn't the Federal Insurance Compensation Act serve as a precedent for paycheque withholdings that can take the place of other's already there for the same purpose, but in a fragmented way?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The individual mandate is a truly loathsome idea, and more so without a public option.
They're basically right, and frankly in the end they concede the point that there is a way (albeit "politically dangerous" and "unlikely") to solve the problem:
"Of course, these constitutional impediments can be avoided if Congress is willing to raise corporate and/or income taxes enough to fund fully a new national health system."
Yes, exactly. Fully fund a new national health system. That is the way to go.
Sometimes you can be so wrong you are right.
I am not a proponent of mandates. We already have mandatory auto insurance, which places enough of a burden on people (even though I agree with that), but I don't feel that mandatory health insurance, on top of our taxes and other costs, would solve the problem.
The problem is that there will still be medical costs to individuals with insurance. The coverage will not be 100%. If we could be sure that the insurance would cover everything, it would be different. But we won't see that. It will cover, at best, 80% of our bills, which we will be mandated to pay, of course.
Mandatory health insurance is not the answer. We need universal health CARE. Not universal health insurance.
He was at the time talking about the individual mandates.
"The federal government doesn't have the power to force an American to buy anything."
On that he's right.
Comments are closed on this entry