The Political Fight Against Health Care
Ken Cuccinelli, the attorney general of Virginia, and the guy whose court case to declare the universal mandate as unconstitutional just won a victory (granted by a judge who co-owns a consulting firm which represents Republicans trying to kill off the Health Care Act), likens the universal mandate for health insurance to a similar mandate for gun ownership:
Um, Cuccinelli, there has been something like that. It’s called the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Remember, this amendment’s draft had a clause for conscientious objection right up until the final draft, and was more a mandate for militia service than anything else.
Now, it did not force everyone to buy a gun–instead, it expected that everyone would want and get one naturally, just as with health insurance today–but neither would the Health Care Act force everyone to buy insurance, as there are hardship exemptions and individual states may opt out of the mandate if they can provide comparable insurance options for their citizens. Massachusetts, which has an individual mandate (thanks, Mitt Romney!) has about 4% of people not signing up for it. In fact, Massachusetts’ plan is popular in the state, with more people signing up than expected, and even the individual mandate is supported by a comfortable majority.
The vehement objections we hear about and the backlash against the legislation are 99% politically motivated (remember, Republicans were for this kind of plan before Obama brought it to realization), and the likelihood will be that most Americans will be glad for the expanded coverage–though not for the gouging that insurance companies and the health care industry in general will (and would have anyway) inevitably attempt. But that’s a battle for another day–me, I would gladly impose cost controls and a profit ceiling for anything related to health care.
It will be interesting to see how the decision Cuccinelli won will stand up to appeal and decisions in other cases, considering the judge’s clear bias, questionable financial conflicts, and the fact that most other judges will not be as quick to supplant the law with their own personal preferences.
http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2010/07/20/the-original-individual-mandate-circa-1792/
Well, there you go.
Whether or not the 2nd Amendment is analogous (and I personally don’t see the similarity), the point is that the Constitutionality of Obamacare is seriously in doubt. Basically, the Democrat position is that the Commerce Clause gives them unlimited authority over anything that involves or touches the economy in any way. Since, practically everything affects the economy to *some* extent, this argument basically says, “the Constitution means nothing. Our Power is limitless”.
If you don’t accept that the Commerce clause is this broad and you still want to find some Constitutional basis for this law, than what would it be? And if you accept this law, does the Government have the power to order you to buy a GM car or take out a Citibank loan, because these would also “be good for the country”?
The Massachusetts example is irrelevant. All powers not enumerated in the Constitution are delegated to the States, so Massachusetts is free to do something stupid. By the way, their health care law is breaking their budget and costing way more than expected, along with causing an exodus of doctors and medical personnel. I agree with you that Romney is a total hack who should never again be elected to anything.
The Democrats never even considered the Constitution when writing Obamacare. Now, the SCOTUS will get to think about it for them.
Incidentally, the Judge wrote a carefully-considered and documented 42-page opinion. Just because he’s a Republican doesn’t make him “clearly biased”. Personally, I think that the Democrat Judges who recklessly dismissed the clear language in the Constitution are the “clearly biased” ones.
If you don’t accept that the Commerce clause is this broad and you still want to find some Constitutional basis for this law, than what would it be?
Unnecessary since health care is 16-20% of our economy. If the Supreme Court says the Congress cannot regulate health care, then we need to amend the Consitution so we as a nation can join the 20th century.
This entire debate is 100% silly since the damn reform is pretty much exactly what the Republicans wanted in 1993. What changed?
does the Government have the power to order you to buy a GM car or take out a Citibank loan, because these would also “be good for the country”?
Depends on the rational basis underpinnings of this law. Generally the courts defer to the Congress on this, as the People do hold the power to fix irrational laws through their representatives.
But this slippery-slope argument is quite the logical fallacy of course.
As a person who allegedly holds a JD degree you should understand this.
the Judge wrote a carefully-considered
“I’ve had a chance to read Judge Hudson’s opinion, and it seems to me it has a fairly obvious and quite significant error”
http://volokh.com/2010/12/13/the-significant-error-in-judge-hudsons-opinion/
and documented 42-page opinion.
It’s got page numbers and everything! Do you really think this is an intelligent argument Geoff? I know you’ve had training in the law but puleeze, try to not insult us here any more than you have to.
Just because he’s a Republican doesn’t make him “clearly biased”
Not in the slightest. The judge who threw out Prop 8 was a Republican appointee, as was the great Justice Stevens.
Of course, any GWB appointee is completely suspect.
Anyhoo, nice strawman there tho since I don’t see Luis saying anything about the judge being a “Republican”. Do you have a quota on how many logical fallacies you have to post a day?
The Democrats never even considered the Constitution when writing Obamacare. Now, the SCOTUS will get to think about it for them.
Neither did the REPUBLICANS IN 1993 with the Chafee bill.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx
Chafee’s co-sponsors were Ted Stevens, Orrin Hatch, Bob Dole. The usual communists.
In case it wasn’t clear, this:
http://volokh.com/2010/12/13/the-significant-error-in-judge-hudsons-opinion/
was not GK but me.
@ Geoff K:
But what about the 400,000 plus Americans that will die if we don’t reform health care in this country?
Unless, you just don’t care about them.
A loss of profit for health care insurance companies is a crisis for you, but the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands of American citizens draws a yawn.
This makes you come accross as pathological and thus your opinion is patently discredited.
Profits at the expense of people’s lives is intrinsically immoral and invalid.
Tell us your plan to provide affordable insurance to these people – then you’ll have credibility. Right now your concern is simply for the well fare of the filthy rich. I say fithy because there wealth is sustained upon the bones of dying Americans.
At no point do I ever see your views acting in the interest of ordinary Americans. Wealthy Americans, yes. Ideology (that serves the interest of wealthy Americans), Yes. Ordinary Americans, no – you couldn’t care less.
Your positions aren’t worth reading because of your sociopath positions.
BTW: I meant 400,000 over the next decade.
Well, people like GK say other people’s problems are not their problems.
This is a morally consistent position, though of course one really can’t find an economy or a society worth living in that operates on these principals.
Health care is an immensely expensive undertaking in the US — the lifetime cost is estimated at $500,000 per capita.
It could be cheaper but that would require a whole suite of government intervention, something conservatives simply do. not. like.
People in the top quintile of this country have it pretty good — affordable PPO for the upper middle class, self-insurance and catastrophic coverage for the upper class.
This is the conservative base, the deal they are fighting to preserve from change.
The recent reform does not actually do much to restrict insurance company profits — they are guaranteed a 15-20% overhead on a much larger transaction volume, with billions of dollars of tax dollars flowing to them as subsidies for those who can’t afford insurance.
Oh, I missed this from GK:
Looks like there’s an interstate commerce issue here, Geoff!
One of the reasons Canada loses so many doctors to the US is that we pay them so much more than they can make in Canada, and Canadianness is no barrier to being a functioning American.
But think of how hard it is for a Japanese doctor to escape the Japanese medical system to the US. Damn near impossible due to the language and cultural barriers.
Part of the reason we can’t do medical reform halfway is the race-to-the-bottom issue that GK describes above.
Doctors make so much money in the U.S.because they have a strong union, the AMA. What you make, even for doctors, is a function of what you earn. Now they make it damn hard to join that union, and that helps them leverage their bargaining power. But there you have it.
If we all had unions like the Doctor’s have, we all would be able to afford the doctors.
The AMA is just a lobbying organization.
The reason doctors make so much money is the general guilding going on, the various barriers to entry of becoming a medical service provider.
The producer surplus of being a medical service provider is immense.
We have about a thousand things that can go wrong with our bodies, right?
Each one is worth $30,000 or more — like a functioning heart — that’s worth every penny you’ll ever make, right?
That pricing power is why doctors are in a good line of work, money-wise.