The fight for health care reform has really made me think about things. When I look at this joke of a bill coming out of the Senate, I have to wonder what being a Democrat really means.
Democrats control the White House, the Senate, and the House. If there was ever a time that we could get substantial health care reform in this country, it’s now. If there was ever a time we could make sure that every American has access to quality, affordable health care, it’s now.
Instead, we get a health care reform bill that the Republicans could have written. It does not have a public option. It does not expand Medicare. It requires all Americans to purchase health insurance from the for-profit health insurance cartel.
That last part is the real kicker for me. I can see requiring Americans to purchase health insurance if there was a not-for-profit alternative. Because this bill lacks a public option, this is not the case. This is requiring Americans to purchase a product that’s purpose is not to improve health, but to make a profit for the health insurance company.
I cannot help but thing the Democratic party is a lot like a dog chasing a car that doesn’t quite know what to do when it catches the car. The Democrats are in position to enact a good health care reform bill. They are choosing not to do that.
I have a real problem with that.
Possibly Related Posts:
- This is the best they can do?
- What’s the point in allowing states to ‘opt out’ of a national health insurance program?
- The current health care reform bill is a sweetheart deal for insurance companies
- Harry Reid is for the public option as long as it’s not owned by the public
- Health care reform without the ‘public option’ is a waste of time
Lee B.
/ December 22, 2009I gotta think that mandated purchase of insurance will be challenged in court rather quickly, once this trainwreck is made law.
Rick
/ December 22, 2009@Lee B.: On what grounds would anyone be able to challenge it?
Lee B
/ December 22, 2009Not sure, but it certainly rises to a forced tax-based action in a nation founded on personal freedoms and freedom of choice. I won’t try to play legal scholar, but this sort of “though shalt or be fined” action just feels un-American.
Lee B.
/ December 23, 2009This came from Fox, and yes they are easy to dislike but I think it gets to what the legal arguments might be:
“Two key issues seem to be attracting the bulk of the legal threats: a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance and the special treatment that states like Nebraska are getting in the bill.
On the first issue, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., on Tuesday renewed the call to examine the constitutionality of whether the federal government can require Americans to purchase a product.
“I don’t believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens,” Ensign said in a statement, raising what’s known as a “constitutional point of order.” Such procedural challenges are rare and typically lead to a vote.
The non-profit Fund for Personal Liberty, as well as a Virginia-based group called the 10th Amendment Foundation, already have threatened to file suit in federal court over this issue if the health care bill passes.
The Constitution allows Congress to tax, borrow, spend, declare war, raise an army and regulate commerce, among other things. Proponents of the insurance mandate point to the Commerce Clause in arguing that Congress is within its rights to require health insurance and dismiss such potential legal challenges.
But foes say the across-the-board requirement is too broad.
“I personally do not believe the Congress has the authority to enact an individual mandate requiring a person to purchase a product from a private seller,” said Kent Masterson Brown, lead counsel with The Fund for Personal Liberty. “I don’t think the power is there. This is not regulating anything.”
He said his group would be joined by the Washington Legal Foundation in filing suit against the health care bill.
“This thing may be stillborn, even if it passes,” he said.
Even though Obama argues that the mandate is similar to laws requiring drivers to obtain auto insurance, opponents cite several key differences. First, the auto insurance mandate is avoidable, since anyone who doesn’t want to pay doesn’t have to drive. Second, auto insurance is mandated in large part so that drivers carry liability insurance to cover damages to other people and cars — not themselves. Third, auto insurance regulation occurs at the state level.
When the Congressional Budget Office considered the idea of a health insurance mandate back in 1994 under the Clinton administration, it concluded that the mandate would be “an unprecedented form of federal action.” The only congressional mandate close to that was the draft, the CBO concluded.
Ensign cited that finding in his complaint.
Still, the legislation does provide for federal subsidies for those who might have trouble affording insurance coverage, and it provides for exemptions for some individuals.
Other legal objections are emerging in the wake of a concession that Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., won for his state as a condition for his support of the health care bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed to provide for full and permanent federal aid for Nebraska’s expanded Medicaid population. It was only one of a slew of hand-crafted sweetheart deals for those senators who agreed to support the bill.
But the Nelson deal swiftly drew the ire of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has asked his state’s attorney general to give the issue a legal review. He told Fox News on Tuesday that other states can probably bring a “constitutional challenge” over the issue. He said it’s unfair for one state to get special treatment while others pick up the tab.
“I don’t believe most senators believe this is OK,” Graham said. “I think it stinks. I think it’s sleazy.”
Graham said his state could file an equal rights suit under the Constitution. The Constitution calls for “equal protection” of all citizens.
Likewise, two Republican state representatives from Tennessee on Monday asked their state attorney general to look into the issue — they called the Medicaid expansion an “unfunded mandate.”
Rep. Debra Young Maggart and Rep. Susan Lynn claimed the Nebraska deal was unfair to other states and asked that Attorney General Robert Cooper take “appropriate legal action” against the federal government if the bill becomes law.
“It is clear by the wording of the legislation itself that not every state would face a similar and equal burden,” they wrote. “We see this as a violation of equal protection of the law, an affront to our sovereignty, and a breach of the U.S. Constitution.”
The non-profit Liberty Legal Institute is poised to assist states that are considering filing suit against the government over the health care bill. The group would not disclose where the suits might come from, but claimed great interest in putting health care reform to the legal test. ”
From here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/22/health-care-face-string-legal-challenges/
This is a pretty fucked up deal.
Rick
/ December 23, 2009@Lee B.: I still don’t know of any existing law that prohibits the Congress from passing a law that says people have to buy insurance.
Lee B.
/ December 23, 2009You mean besides the constitution- not allowing congress to require people to buy a product from a private vendor?
By your reasoning, congress can also tell us we all have to buy a wiener dog. Or a pool skimmer. Or a garden gnome.
Rick
/ December 24, 2009@Lee B.: But there’s nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from passing a law requiring people to buy insurance from the private sector. It’s not my reasoning. I don’t agree with it. It’s just the way it is.
Lee B.
/ December 24, 2009We’ll see…
Anonymous
/ December 24, 2009I am wondering why the gov would tell me I have to buy a product that is as faulty as healthcare controlled by insurance companies often is. Can’t they spend some time looking at that, and also, some time writing a bill that would make more sense from legal standpoint? What’d they have to vote in something that is so likely to get voted out for?
Rick
/ December 24, 2009@Anonymous: Because the Republicans and Democrats that are bought and paid for by the health care insurance cartel and big pharma have made sure that nothing will get in the way of these two industries from continuing huge profits.