It is truly amazing to see some of the responses in this thread. All this talk about the founders and what they would have done. Some of you guys cant see the forest because of all the trees in the way.
It's not what the founding fathers would have done, it's what they did do. The founding fathers did pass a law requiring private citizens to purchase health care. That is the exact issue here. And when talking about the constitutionality of a piece of legislation the founding fathers and the constitution is the topic at hand.
Clients have to pay if they can but a doctor cannot refuse care to someone if they are in an emergency whether they can pay or not. Obviously if a doctor isn't present they don't have to go out of there way but if they are present and someone comes in with an emergency they have to provide care. Anything less is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. If you have doctors who are not doing that I would strongly suggest checking their accreditation.
THey got different parts to pass the bill but I don't see how the mandate has that big of an affects on things like closing the donut hole in Medicare.
That's certainly true - there are certain lesser pieces that could work without the others. But the point is that the bill was built as a whole and intended to work as a whole. For example, the people that passed the bill wanted and intended it to be deficit neutral (at worst). If a piece that is revenue raising or cost cutting was declared unconstitutional for whatever reason, then the remaining part of the bill becomes deficit-creating, which was not what Congress intended. I don't think Congress wanted the courts to have the ability to change the law in that way. To avoid the mandate-preexisting condition problem, you'd have to spell out the severability of each individual clause, listing what clauses would invalidate which other clauses, etc. With thousands of clauses and literally millions of combinations, that would be impossible to do. As such, you make the bill with the intent that it all goes together and is all-or-nothing.
You may want to do a little research. The Seamans Act withheld a 1% tax from seamen to build hospitals for the seamen. The seaman were not required to purchase private insurance. Also, this law applied only to the seamen. It was in no way applied to every citizen who was employed or unemployed. Congress has never passed a law dictating citizens buy any products.
Wow what a huge surprise!!! I was so sure the Senate would vote to repeal it and Obama would gladly sign it too! <sarcasm off>
Again the fact that only seaman were required to do it doesn't matter. The question of constitutionality isn't because large numbers as opposed to small numbers are required to do it, it's because any small citizens are supposedly required to do it. And yes congress has passed laws. Actually the Seaman's act did require sailors to purchase health insurance. In addition there is the law from George Washington requiring private citizens to purchase a musket as well as a bayonet and ammo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 The Govt. including the actual men who helped draft the constitution absolutely required private citizens to purchase certain products and health insurance.
Republicans better get busy and start coming up with ideas about creating jobs and doing what is needed for America instead of fighting frivolous partisan battles that do nothing for the country. Have they even proposed a jobs bill yet? Have they proposed any legislation that will help the economy rebound? America is watching
The oppisite will happen more americans will be unemployed from the public sector. At least 1.1 millions private sector jobs were created under the Obama adminstration. And republicans will head the oppisite direction. Oh wait, the bush tax cuts passed so the trickled down effect will work this time around right!
