The debate should not be centered on which plan is better, but whether constitutional authority exists for any of the plans under consideration. Unfortunately, such inquiry is scarce, and hardly noted. Last week, three leading Democrats in Congress were asked during news conferences to cite the constitutional authority for their healthcare proposals. To a one, they responded with answers that betrayed unmitigated arrogance and a disdain for our Constitution second to none in our nation's noble history. "Are you serious? Are you serious?" replied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when asked specifically about the constitutional authority for Obama's health care proposal. Pelosi's spokesman later clarified, "You can put this on the record: That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question." (Apparently, there was an echo in the chamber.) Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer attempted to answer the question by demonstrating his illimitable ignorance on the subject: "Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect [a mandate that individuals must buy health insurance]. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility." Perhaps Hoyer should take a basic civics course on the "General Welfare" clause in Article 1, Section 8, as written by James Madison. On the limitations of the Constitution, Madison wrote: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..." Finally, Democrat Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (where Rule of Law once prevailed), responded to the question of constitutional authority by insisting, "We have plenty of authority. ... I mean, there's no question there's authority. Nobody questions that. Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway? The federal government does that on federal highways." (No, actually, the states set speed limits, and only misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause by judicial activists could be construed to give the federal government such authority.) As for Obama, his publicist, Robert Gibbs, claimed, "I won't be confused as a constitutional scholar, but I don't believe there's a lot of -- I don't believe there's a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity of [questions about constitutional authority]." For sure, nobody will confuse Gibbs with a scholar of any stripe. And, we would remind Gibbs that when the Clintonistas attempted to nationalize healthcare (18 percent of the U.S. economy) back in 1994, the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office issued this piece of analysis: "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate ... would impose a duty on individuals as members of society [and] require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government." - Mark Alexander
Location: 6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University of Notre Dame
Posts: 1,671
Blessings: 39,299
Reps: 18,657,536,865 (power: 18,657,539)
Originally Posted by jayem
There has always been a strain of thought, going back to Hamilton, that the Congress has broad powers under the general welfare clause. And since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation. So we have a federal government very involved in regulating the economy, along with tax supported social welfare programs, like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. At this point, I think the most secure way to Constitutionally limit this power would be an amendment. It would have to be worded somewhow to clearly and explicity limit Congressional authority under the commerce and general welfare clauses. And it would be extremely difficult to pass. Although, amendments have been passed before from grass-roots efforts. Prohibition and women's suffrage are examples. So it's not impossible,
There were actually 3 views regarding the General Welfare Clause of the U.S. Constitution. There existed the Madisonnian/Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian, and Monroe interpretation of the general welfare clause. From 1800 up to the advent of the Civil War, the Hamiltonian interpretation was rejected, rejected by the generation/electorate which produced the U.S. Constitution, presidents from the framing generation rejected the Hamiltonian view (except for the first two). For approximately 60 years the Madisonnian/Monroe interpretation, significantly narrower than Hamilton's view, dominated American politics, American political/legal theory, and political philosophy.
Then in the 1930's the Court, renown for rejecting FDR's radical legislation, began to take a more expansive view of the U.S. Constitution and perhaps not by accident. The Court's expansive interpretation was subsequent to FDR's threat to pack the Court with justices who of course shared his leftward leaning interpretation of the U.S. constitution. The first U.S. Supreme Court case in which Hamilton's view was adopted by the Court was the case of U.S. v. Butler. Ironically, they adopted the Hamiltonian view and still invalidated the legislation.
However, the general welfare clause is a tax and spend provision. It is a stretch beyond any logical and rational thought to think a provision authorizing congress to tax and spend includes a power to dictate to the people what they must purchase. The fact is, only the most liberal reading of the General Welfare Clause/Interstate Commerce Clause would vest a power to Congress to mandate to people they must purchase something. However, such a reading would require such illogical, irrational, and unreasonable reasoning and interpretation, as to render the interpretation as sheer stupidity and possibly borderline insanity.
__________________ "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution and 4th president of the United States.
Could you explain exactly how an individual will be forced (not just encouraged) to purchase Health Insurance? I have not seen any version of health care reform that forced individuals to purchase coverage.
Originally Posted by NotreDame
There were actually 3 views regarding the General Welfare Clause of the U.S. Constitution. There existed the Madisonnian/Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian, and Monroe interpretation of the general welfare clause. From 1800 up to the advent of the Civil War, the Hamiltonian interpretation was rejected, rejected by the generation/electorate which produced the U.S. Constitution, presidents from the framing generation rejected the Hamiltonian view (except for the first two). For approximately 60 years the Madisonnian/Monroe interpretation, significantly narrower than Hamilton's view, dominated American politics, American political/legal theory, and political philosophy.
Then in the 1930's the Court, renown for rejecting FDR's radical legislation, began to take a more expansive view of the U.S. Constitution and perhaps not by accident. The Court's expansive interpretation was subsequent to FDR's threat to pack the Court with justices who of course shared his leftward leaning interpretation of the U.S. constitution. The first U.S. Supreme Court case in which Hamilton's view was adopted by the Court was the case of U.S. v. Butler. Ironically, they adopted the Hamiltonian view and still invalidated the legislation.
However, the general welfare clause is a tax and spend provision. It is a stretch beyond any logical and rational thought to think a provision authorizing congress to tax and spend includes a power to dictate to the people what they must purchase. The fact is, only the most liberal reading of the General Welfare Clause/Interstate Commerce Clause would vest a power to Congress to mandate to people they must purchase something. However, such a reading would require such illogical, irrational, and unreasonable reasoning and interpretation, as to render the interpretation as sheer stupidity and possibly borderline insanity.
__________________ LOVE is the LAW!
Disclamer: Awl poastings bye ACougar R subgict two speling and gramaticole arrers, ef ewe no hou itt shood bee speled thin yo probly noe wat waz mint, moar dan dis 'E cairs knot.
Could you explain exactly how an individual will be forced (not just encouraged) to purchase Health Insurance? I have not seen any version of health care reform that forced individuals to purchase coverage.
Well; I guess it depends on your definition of forced. We can charge people a penalty if they don't buy it; that is what is often talked about.
Is that forcing? Maybe not.
If they don't pay the penalty; we throw them in jail.
Could you explain exactly how an individual will be forced (not just encouraged) to purchase Health Insurance? I have not seen any version of health care reform that forced individuals to purchase coverage.
You are not forced to, it will just be against the law not to. So, technically, anyone who doesnt get insurance will be a criminal.
"The New York Times reports that Baucus made some changes to his bill: "Mr. Baucus would cut the maximum penalty for people who do not have insurance, to $1,900 a year for a family, from $3,800 in his original proposal. The penalty would be an excise tax, collected by the Internal Revenue Service, and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation said it would hit some people with annual incomes of less than $200,000."
The problem is, it will still be cheaper to pay the fine than pay the premium.
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
You are not forced to, it will just be against the law not to. So, technically, anyone who doesnt get insurance will be a criminal.
"The New York Times reports that Baucus made some changes to his bill: "Mr. Baucus would cut the maximum penalty for people who do not have insurance, to $1,900 a year for a family, from $3,800 in his original proposal. The penalty would be an excise tax, collected by the Internal Revenue Service, and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation said it would hit some people with annual incomes of less than $200,000."
It will be interesting to see how many people's much-vaunted "principles" stand up to the fact that it might cost them some money.
Well, I have a family of 4 and pay my own premium of around $500 per month. Under the new plan, it will be illegal for an insurance company to turn anyone down for coverage. If that is the case, why would anyone pay for insurance? Why not wait until you get sick then get coverage? The penalty will be $1900 per year. Right now, I pay $6000 per year for coverage. If I drop my coverage and pay the fine, I save $4100 per year, and if I ever need coverage I cant be refused. Why wouldnt I do that?
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
Just because they can't turn you down doesn't mean they have to process your insurance in 24 hours or less... so that emergency appendectomy will be on you, although I'm sure insurance will be there to help you with the follow on care.
Shouldn't be a problem, put a second morgange on the house for the initial 40K worth of care and drive on...
Originally Posted by lordbt
Well, I have a family of 4 and pay my own premium of around $500 per month. Under the new plan, it will be illegal for an insurance company to turn anyone down for coverage. If that is the case, why would anyone pay for insurance? Why not wait until you get sick then get coverage? The penalty will be $1900 per year. Right now, I pay $6000 per year for coverage. If I drop my coverage and pay the fine, I save $4100 per year, and if I ever need coverage I cant be refused. Why wouldnt I do that?
__________________ LOVE is the LAW!
Disclamer: Awl poastings bye ACougar R subgict two speling and gramaticole arrers, ef ewe no hou itt shood bee speled thin yo probly noe wat waz mint, moar dan dis 'E cairs knot.
Just because they can't turn you down doesn't mean they have to process your insurance in 24 hours or less... so that emergency appendectomy will be on you, although I'm sure insurance will be there to help you with the follow on care.
Shouldn't be a problem, put a second morgange on the house for the initial 40K worth of care and drive on...
But that is true now for someone who doesnt have insurance. That 40K just wont get paid if they dont have it. So long as the fine is significantly lower than the cost of the premium, you are kidding yourself if you think anyone without insurance today is going to run out and get it even at a lower, government subsidized price. Those with pre-existing conditions who could not get insurance before will likely sign up, but those who lack insurance today for other reasons will not rush out to get it. So this legislation will only increase everyones premiums, everyones taxes and have little impact on the number of uninsured.
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
Linear Mode
