Health Care Reform being attacked

About Us

Tour

FAQ

Signup

Login

Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.

Forums > All Posts > Health Care Reform being attacked

Displaying all 6 Forum Posts

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

2011-01-08 11:55 AM

LLBarry
Beverly, MA
Posts: 299

We should have seen it coming. Now that the GOP has control the health care reform is being attacked.

"A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court." See article.

Any other places this is being attacked and are they more plausible than unconstitutional?

2011-01-08 04:35 PM

LLBarry
Beverly, MA
Posts: 299

Gallup released a new poll showing net support (46% to 40%) for repeal. Although Gallup characterized the result as falling short of a strong endorsement of the repeal proposal, their results imply more support for a complete repeal than indicated by other recent polls.

Unfortunately, the way the Gallup poll is worded makes the support look stronger than it is. When is asks about repeal it also asks about changing the program. Which could indicate that people want to keep the program not repeal it. See article.

2011-01-16 11:11 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

The issue of health care repeal will be in the headlines again this week with the House voting on HR 2 entitled "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." Of course the title is misleading as the Republicans have not provided any solid evidence that the new health care law would kill jobs. FactCheck.org has said it would be job neutral while other organizations state that it will increase jobs. Regardless, it is nothing more than an exercise that panders to their Tea Party faction...and the "job killing" adjectives are nothing new. Republicans also referred to the Energy bill as "job killing." That term "job killing" is an invention of Frank Luntz, the Republican word smither, and when Republicans decide to use it or some other term, they all start using it in unison. It's almost comical how the "collective" works...if not a bit frightening.

The bigger issue on health care that is under challenge in the courts, however, is the individual mandate that requires people to purchase health insurance. Eliot Spitzer in a January 10, 2011 Slate article states: "...few issues within health care generate such a visceral and often hysterical response as the "individual mandate"—the obligation that all people participate either by purchasing insurance or paying a tax whose proceeds would be used to defray the costs of uninsured health care and reduce premiums."

Spitzer sums up the arguments nicely:

Let's start with a couple of facts nobody disputes. Federal law requires hospitals to give emergency care to all people—regardless of insurance coverage. The annual bill for care delivered by hospitals to uninsured individuals is more than $40 billion. Those costs are reimbursed to hospitals through multiple reimbursement programs—state and federal—all designed to cover what is called "charity care." All the funds for these reimbursements come from you and me—in the form of either higher taxes or insurance premiums. Our dollars are funneled to the hospitals to cover the cost of covering the uninsured. Those who get the care yet have no insurance and pay no bills are freeloaders whose costs have been shifted to everybody else. These freeloaders are the very sorts of people Republicans usually love to deride—for they eat from the trough of public benefits yet contribute nothing.

Opponents argue that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and an overreach of the Commerce Clause. In his January 12 article, SCOTUS Sending A Signal On The Commerce Clause And ObamaCare? Doug Mataconis cites a new Supreme Court action (Alderman vs US) in which the court "refused to examine whether Congress overstepped its authority when it made it a federal crime for a convicted felon to possess a bullet-proof vest." Does this have implications for the way the court might rule on the individual mandate?

Mataconis clarifies: "the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to ban possession of any good that has ever crossed state lines or been sold in interstate commerce. By contrast, the individual mandate regulates the condition of not having health insurance, which does not require the possession of any good — whether purchased in interstate commerce or not. Indeed, the mandate doesn’t regulate any activity of any kind."

The intracacies of the Commerce Clause applications can be mind boggling. And just because a court has ruled one way in the past, doesn't provide assurances that it will vote the same way in the future. SCOTUS has become politicized in many ways...just look at the Citizens United ruling.

Justices Thomas and Scalia dissented in the Alderman vs US case. If Roberts and Alito and Kennedy are swayed by Scalia and Thomas, it would not bode well for the individual mandate. So will anyone want to predict how SCOTUS will rule?

But think about how they would rule if George Bush or John McCain had nominated the recent two Supreme Court justices instead of Barack Obama. That is a nightmare that we would be all living every day.

2011-01-16 12:04 PM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Well....it's not a mandate.....and it won't be a crime to not have insurance....it will only change your status as it matters to tax exemptions......Don't want to purchase healthcare, or sign up for qualified coverage that you may be eligible for through Medicare and Medicaid? Well fine.....don't......just don't expect to be rewarded for not being responsible....

Who's the Party of Personal Responsibility, Again?

Eric & Health Care Reform......Status Quo=The Downward Spiral....You bet.

Ninie Inch Nails honored by the Government for helping Eric De La Cruz

Veronica De La Cruz in Harlem 1/26/10

Beside You In Time....NIN

VIVA TRENT REZNOR!!!!
FREEDOM FOR THE EXPLOITED; JUSTICE AND LIBERTY FOR ALL!

2011-01-23 01:01 PM

LLBarry
Beverly, MA
Posts: 299

"Six more states said Tuesday they would join a lawsuit in Florida against President Obama's health care overhaul, meaning more than half of the country will challenge the law." See article. For a total of 26 states!

Joining the coalition in the Florida case were: Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

The other states that are suing are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

If actually taken away... what new items will be affected by the bill removal? Students and the way they will pay their loans is one of them. Another is new regulations on student loans...

2011-01-23 05:35 PM

LLBarry
Beverly, MA
Posts: 299

"U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson last month backed the argument by Virginia's attorney general that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to start buying health insurance in 2014 or face a fine.

The Justice Department, as expected, filed a notice with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that it was appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond.

The appeal comes days before Republicans who control the U.S. House of Representatives plan to pass legislation that would repeal the healthcare reform law. However, the measure has no chance of passing the Senate and Obama would veto it.

Judge Hudson ruled on December 13 that the individual mandate invited an "unbridled exercise of federal police powers." "

See article.

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

About Us

FAQ

Advertise

Links

Login

Sign Up

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES