Congress doesn't mandate that everybody consume health care - your body mandates this. You are not the Highlander. Sorry.
The early congress mandated private citizens have health care. That's the issue here. The challenge to the constitution is whether the govt. can mandate private citizens purchase a product. It isn't about how many of those citizens they mandate to purchase a product. The Health care bill absolutely reduces cost and the deficit.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but would the government be able to get over the problem of a "mandate tax/penalty" by simply charging a tax on everyone, then offer a refund/deduction for those who buys health care on their own. I mean, people get tax credits and deductions for all kinds of stuff (buying hybrid car, mortgage interest, etc.).
I would think so. But, they'd have to get the change through Congress, and it wouldn't pass the House now.
That's the argument I've seen, CH. They could impose a tax on everyone, but waive that tax for those who can verify adequate coverage. They can also restrict the companies from denying coverage to certain groups. Accomplishes much the same, but not as fun politically. So far two judges think the legislation is OK, and two don't. They aren't (or shouldn't) be deciding if it's 'good', just whether it's something that can be done, as it has been passed.
I think the gov't should be able to calculate what the cost of an uninsured person is to them and then add that as a tax to people who are uninsured. Basically you can stay uninsured but not get a free ride. I am confused as to why Republicans support uninsured people getting free rides, since I thought the notion was gross to conservatives.
Absolutely based on what? An estimate? Wait till you have concrete numbers before you start claiming that.
Based on the estimate that has always been agreed upon for budgetary matters. Based also on the facts of the way health care providers have been raising costs, the cost for uninsured medical care etc.
It doesn't cut costs, they just claim the taxes it imposes will outweigh the spending. So it reduces the deficit by raising taxes. Of course, we know that entitlement programs always cost exponentially more than estimated, so it's all bunk to begin with.
Correct it cuts the deficit, and it will cut costs directly from the waste in Medicare, and it also cuts the cost of having to pay for uninsured people who use the emergency room all the time. We know that this is not an entitlement program. It both cuts costs and reduces the deficit.
nice -- Reagan’s Solicitor General Charles Fried: ‘I Am Quite Sure That The Health Care Mandate Is Constitutional’ In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today on “The Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act,” President Ronald Reagan’s former Solicitor General — Harvard Law Professor Charles Fried — tore into the reasoning of Judge Roger Vinson’s decision striking down the Affordable Care Act, saying the issue should be a “no brainer”: " I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional. … My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress’ Commerce power, “what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is—to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed.” To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate. The mandate is a rule—more accurately, “part of a system of rules by which commerce is to be governed,” to quote Chief Justice Marshall. And if that weren’t enough for you—though it is enough for me—you go back to Marshall in 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, where he said “the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. The government which has the right to do an act”—surely, to regulate health insurance—“and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means.” And that is the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...] I think that one thing about Judge Vinson’s opinion, where he said that if we strike down the mandate everything else goes, shows as well as anything could that the mandate is necessary to the accomplishment of the regulation of health insurance."
Haha. What doesn't fit comfortably within the confines of the Commerce Clause these days? It's a joke. <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6SDf5_Thqsk?hd=1" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
Its not just the government that mandates that but the Hippocratic Oath. Any accredited doctor working in a public or private hospital has to abide by it.
I keep learning more about the legislative process through this bill. interesting discussion on lawerence odonnel last night. they could have made the mandate severable from the rest of the bill. most bills, different pieces are severable so one part won't kill an entire bill. they were wondering if not making the mandate severable was a blunder or was it intentional as in it would be used in a game of chicken. you want kill this part or you will have to kill the whole bill.
I represent hospitals. There are many great physicians out there who do provide care free of charge, but most of my clients now have to pay physicians to provide ER call because the hospitals cannot get many physicians to respond otherwise.
too bad, so sad... Republican effort To Repeal Health Care Law Fails In Senate Where are the jobs Mr Speaker?!?!?
I think it has to be intentional - or should be, at least, from a good-policy perspective. You can't eliminate the mandate and keep the no pro-existing conditions clause, for example. That would destroy the concept of insurance because people would just wait until they have a major illness and then get insurance. The whole "fix health care in steps" doesn't work for this exact reason - all the parts go together, and they got different stakeholders to agree to it based on the fact that other parts would be in place. On this part, I do agree with the recent judge - if the individual mandate is not allowed, the whole bill has to be scrapped.
