In the past two years, President Obama and Congress have invested heavily in economic recovery, pulling America back from the brink of a second Great Depression and laying the foundations for renewed growth.
The recovery is in progress. But in the shadow of a global financial crisis and a deep recession, unemployment remains high and the American people need Washington to stay focused on job creation.
Americans will no doubt be confused by the priorities of the new Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Will they dedicate the first month of the 112th Congress to job creation, as we did in the 111th? No. House Republicans have announced their top priority: to deny millions of low- and middle-income Americans health care and increase the deficit by repealing health care reform, a signal achievement of the previous Congress.
Their effort is doomed to fail; the Senate will not pass nor would the president sign any such law. But House Republicans will nevertheless pay lip service to the Tea Party activists who put them in power by forcing a vote on repeal.
Opponents of health-care reform have rallied around a constitutional objection to the "individual mandate," the provision of the reform law that requires Americans to purchase health insurance. They argue that Congress has no constitutional authority to mandate coverage.
They are wrong.
The powers of the Congress are enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Among them are the powers to raise and maintain the military, to declare war, to print and manage the currency, to establish federal courts and to make bankruptcy laws.
Critically, this section also grants Congress broad power "to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States." Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce is one of two key Constitutional foundations of the health-care law. Under existing case law, Congress has clear authority under the commerce clause to regulate health care and health insurance, which undeniably impact interstate commerce and contribute more than 17 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product.
The other Constitutional foundation of the health care law is the final congressional power enumerated in Article I, Section 8: the power of Congress to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." Congress not only can regulate the health insurance industry; it can establish the laws necessary and proper for carrying out that regulation.
The individual mandate is an essential plank of health-care reform, whose core objectives are expansion of access to quality, affordable care and prohibition of insurance practices that deny necessary care to sick Americans. A key -- and popular -- provision of reform is the ban on discrimination against patients who are already sick. Without the individual mandate, Americans could abuse this provision by waiting to get insurance until after they are diagnosed with an illness. Insurers would be required to cover care even though the consumer had not been paying premiums to cover the expense. The cost of that care would be passed along to those who are already insured, hospitals, taxpayers and doctors. Such a system would be incoherent, ineffective and unfair.
Only through the individual mandate can we implement the ban on discrimination against Americans with preexisting conditions and help millions afford coverage. It is a necessary provision of common-sense regulations that expand Americans' access to care and stop abusive insurance practices. It is necessary, proper, and falls squarely within the powers of Congress enumerated in Article I.
This debate may well be headed to the Supreme Court. But decades from now, Americans will wonder what all the fuss over health care was about. We passed legislation that expands access to insurance for millions of Americans. It will prevent death from treatable illness for Americans who previously could not afford care. It saves the taxpayer money and it is constitutional.
The universal insurance coverage adopted in 2006 was projected to cost taxpayers $88 million a year. However, since this program was adopted in 2006, our health-care costs have in total exceeded $4 billion. The cost of Massachusetts' plan has blown a hole in the Commonwealth's budget.
If not for federal Medicaid reimbursements and commitments from Washington to prop up this plan, Massachusetts would be broke. The only reason MassCare has survived is that it has been repeatedly bailed out by the federal government. But that raises the question: Who will bail America out if when implement a similar program?
While everyone should have access to affordable health care, the experience in Massachusetts tells us that the new federal entitlement will burden future taxpayers with unfunded liabilities they cannot afford. Health-care inflation will continue. Mandates will increase insurance premiums. And the deficit will reach frightening levels as the law's costs greatly exceed the projections of its advocates.
Laurence
Focus on decimating big government in other areas, then, once you have a handle on it, things look manageable, the people will be on your side.
US vs. Lopez argued that carrying a firearm in a school didn't substantially effect the commerce of the country. However, healthcare does substaially affect this country and can therefore be regulated.
Gonzales vs. Raich actually upheld the federal government's right to regulate interstate commerce. The commerce in question was the use of marijuana (specifically medical marijuana). If the federal government has the right to regulate marijuana it has the right to regulate healthcare.
I am 59, pay 100% of my own insurance premiums for my wife and my self. No tax breaks no help from my former employer (laid me off). I am allowed to remain in their group since I was old enough to retire when they laid me off (no pension, only 401K but not old enough to take money out without penalty, a goody inserted by the banking industry).
While I don't like everything about the law it could benefit me in that I would have much more choice in coverage because I could shop around without being afraid of being dropped due to sickness. My current coverage is with a group and they can't do that but anyone else I went to could without this law. It's called freedom to chose what's most affordable and works for me and my wife.
You cannot compare health insurance to car insurance because everyone do not have a car or an auto but eventually everyone will need medical treatment and believe me if they don't have insurance they will seek treatment and receive it. When you take about medicare and medicaid you already want to get rid of that. Then you have the nerve to say the government is trying to take over, truth be told with the government help the state will not survive because the states worry more about how there states look instead of the health needs of the people. As long as they can sit, stand or lay on a job they are happy.
The idea of this being covered by the Commerce Clause is a sill one. I am still wondering how you're going to force a small business man/women or a self employed person making $30,000 to $65,000 a year to shell out $10,000 to $14,000 a year in premiums..(I live in Mass, those are the LOW ranges)
Second, the reason the curretn premiums are so freakin' high is that we are paying money above what is actually needed for our care to offset the costs of the people who get medical services (usually thriough emergency rooms for "free clinincs") but cannot pay for them and the fact that until the law came into effect insurance companies could tack on "administrative and overhead fees" of whatever percentage they felt like and raise the rates when ever they wanted to.
Provisions in the HC law prohibit those practices.
If, instead of assessing a penalty, they raised everyone's taxes and then issued tax credits for those who carry health insurance, then, they would be on solid ground, since tax credits have been around for awhile, like buying energy efficient stuff.
Anyhow, I think the "mandate" is misunderstood. Nobody has to buy health insurance. They can instead pay the penalty, which is much less. And people who can't afford health insurance are eligible for subsidy. I *think* the idea of subsidies is to keep health care at no more than a certain percentage of income.
The government has a site that explains the new Affordable Care Act
http://www.healthcare.gov
Here's the timeline of the law's implimentation
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html
The Congress consistently sees its mandate as "helping" business, and "cooperating with" business, and "trusting" business to "do the right thing." But that's not what the Federal Government is for. That's also not what State Government is for.
People sent you to Washington because they couldn't afford health insurance. What came back was, "afford it, or else."
What came back was, precisely what the insurance industry "contributed" for. What it "lobbied" for. What it "exercised its corporate freedom of speech for," to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a day. And, it apparently got everything it came to Washington to buy.
But 311 million people didn't.
"Oh, to hear the insect on the leaf, pronouncing judgment upon his brethren in the dust."
Anyhow, the bill needed to be signed by President Obama, whose written response to health care when campaigning was this:
"Every American has the right to affordable, comprehensive and portable health coverage. My plan will guarantee coverage through partnerships among employers, private health plans, the federal government and states."
That's what we got.
People didn't support my boy, Dennis Kucinich:
"I am the co-author and co-sponsor of HR 676, the Conyers/Kucinich bill, which will provide for true universal, single-payer health care. All residents of the United States will be fully covered for medical, dental, vision, mental health and long-term care. There will be no deductibles, no co-pays, and no insurance company employees whose job it is to deny you coverage so their company makes more money."
To save money, we're going to have to copy some system used in other countries that deliver comparable care at the right price.
United States v. Lopez and Gonzales v. Raich.
Did you know that the mandate to require the purchase of insurance was added to the HCB by republicans? Congress is packed with lawyers and our glorious president is a constitutional scholar but I guess your opinion trumps that.
I have to have homeowners insurance to purchase a house. I have to have car insurance to drive a car. Explain EXACTLY why I should not be required to have health insurance to see a doctor.
The other issue is how are you planning on making a person earning $30,000 to $65,000 or even $80,000 a year with a mortgage and family to spend an additional $10,000 to $14,000 a year for coverage?
Iraqi can have any type of health care that they can pay for.
US vs. Lopez was reached because the majority argument was that carrying a firearm does not substantially affect the interstate commerce of the country. Healthcare is considered to affect the commerce of this country and its citizens.
Gonzales vs. Raich upheld the government's position on the use of the commerce clause for the sale and production of marijuana. If the government can regulate the use of an illegal substance it should be able to regulate healthcare.
Every american needs medical care, whether it is a circumstance of their birth (and all persons are born,) or any one of many other reasons (accident, congenital, acute)
Since every american WILL need medical,care they should pay for it. Does that mean you MUST have health insurance to pay for it? well, what do you think? Maybe Bill Gates doesn't, but how many americans can afford to pay medical bills out of pocket?
Bottom line: all americans must have health insurance.
What the congressman who wrote the article should simply say is Congress can do this because Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power to levy tax.
It's nice to have the fun and convenience of ideology, but this is serious business and not the time for navel gazing.
As for buying insurance across state lines? I don't want my health insurer to adopt the lowest standards by moving to some southern or other low regulation red state.
Ordering people to spend $10K to $14K a year will never pass anything. Its unworkable. It would amount to an additional income tax for most people (at the Median income level or below) of 22% to 35%. Currently they pay virtuall no income taxes after standard deductions and inccome credits.
Perhaps the federal government should mandate that you purchase one type of food. Or that it requires that you eat specific amounts of various types of food. Food insurance would surely be required to cover breads, dairy, meat, and vegetables. But it also requires you to pay for foie gras and wagyu beef (because Obama thinks that's important) regardless if you are a vegetarian or not.
And don't be so daring as to eat something other than what the government prescribes. If you do that, they'll place a lein on your house and garnish your wages. And you're no longer permitted to save for future food needs, because that would reduce the potential pool of the food insurance. And how is the government going to pay for all this food insurance? BY TAXING FOOD!!!!
Face it, this is the worst idea ever conceived.
IMPO Congress has not been honest with the American people. The United States is the only industrialized country in the world that relies heavily on a "for-profit" medical insurance industry to provide basic health care.
The "for profit" health insurance companies are not the solution, they're part of the problem.
The whole concept of insurance is to have a large diverse risk pool. The larger the pool, the lower the cost per individual participant. No one asks to be sick or injured. It's largely a matter of luck. Bad enough to have to deal with pain and suffering, under our current system you get the added benefit of ostracism and usurious expenses. "How dare you raise the cost of insurance for the rest of us".
When the for profits took over, they "cherry picked" their customer base. They could offer lower prices then the established non profits, by accepting only healthy customers, leaving the ones in need of services behind. The for profit insurance companies essentially broke the system. How was their duplicitous behavior addressed?
They were essentially put in charge, and made stronger, by a government program promising to help average Americans lower their costs. Medicare for all makes fiscal and moral sense. The current reform package does not.
I suspect the real reason for the compromise was unemployment. Too many insurance employees would have lost their jobs under genuine reform.
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive".
AND the individual mandate was first spoken about, but as a positive thing, by Sen McCain in a Miami speech in the early 1990s while campaigning against the concepts in "Hillarycare" being proposed by the Clinton administration. Aand it was also a key provion in Bush Srs attempt at health care reform.
You benefit from the common wealth either directly of indirectly by virtue of being an American Citizen but on occasion the benefits you reap may infringe on what you perceive to be your personal freedoms. If don’t like nor want to contribute move to Somalia or some other crap hole where you are not obligated to anyone but yourself otherwise stop acting like an ingrate and an unpatriotic freeloader.
This is hardly a constitutional argument but more of a more moral one.
I remember Lyndon Johnson as saying "No longer will the youth of America burden to pay for the health of its elderly" yet, here we are with bill that is unconstitutional as there is an individual mandate AGAINST state citizens to purchase a product solely for the reason of "interstate commerce."
I benefit because I contribute and pay my taxes and serve my country, I don't benefit from poor or lower class families who: have no business; pay no taxes; commit more crimes than they prevent; and leech upon the system.It's not right for the more burdened to handle more burdens, just so others don't have to. This is not a moral argument, otherwise they could just enact laws forcing people to take in homeless people so they don't die from cold and starvation. It's a constitutional argument about the power and extent of the federal government. Whether Congressman Johnson thinks it's unconstitutional or not, that can easily be fixed: pass an amendment forbidding the federal government from ever passing a law with an individual mandate. Shame, now we must pass laws telling our government what they can't do to us. Our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves!
- premiums are based on the age at which you first joined. Put off buying insurance until you are old and pay the price
- pre-existing conditions are not covered for the first year. Put off buying insurance until you get sick, hard luck (pre-existing means just that, it doesn't have to be diagnosed).
Simple, it works, I think it would be constitutional. Republicans might even like it.
I personally worry about being forced to purchase healthcare. There has been no definition of affordable insurance and I've had no good experiences with insurance thus far. How are they defining people who can't afford insurance and how does that stack up against actual costs of living? This is what worries me greatly as I cannot currently afford insurance. From my mathematics, the health issues that I am statistically likely to have will be cheaper for me to pay for out of pocket, as opposed to paying for insurance plus some out of pocket fees. Yes, I ran those numbers. If I have a major health issue, which is improbable though not impossible, it'll be more affordable for me to pay for private care in Europe. I'm more than willing to journey for my health if I'm able to.
At least look into a high-deductible HSA policy. Premiums are much lower and you would have coverage for unexpected catastrophes.
High deductible HSAs have a lot of downsides, including that once you figure in the cost of the plan plus the amount you need to save, you still pay almost as much as you would for a regular plan anyway in my state. Nope, can't afford that with rent, bills, food, and travel. There are many people like me, who do not qualify for any assistance and can't afford the so-called "affordable" options. They'd leave people like me with a 0 or negative balance.
I've dropped high risk activities from my lifestyle for now and I'm keeping healthy. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue in a developed nation. People should not have to struggle to balance income and health.