• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Health Care Bill Constitutionality?

BeAChooser

Banned
B
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
11,716
I don't believe these health care bill items are Constitutional (and I'm sure there are many more). Care to discuss this?


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html

Mr. Nelson won the concession that Congress will pay for 100% of Nebraska Medicaid expansions into perpetuity.
Click to expand...

The Constitution gives us equal protection under the law (14th Amendment). So why are Nebraskans being singled out as special? Why will we be forced to pay for their Medicaid costs? Sorry but this BRIBE to Nelson is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But it shows the lows to which democrats have sunk to pass their health care monstrosity.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/reid_bill_declares_future_cong_1.asp

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses
Click to expand...


Where in the Constitution does it state that legislation passed by Congress cannot be repealed by future Congresses? That's NONSENSE.

And what about the "Individual Mandate". What section of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to force individuals to buy products under threat of criminal penalty?

I think the glaring truth is these are just more examples that the Constitution doesn't matter to health care bill advocates (i.e., democrats).

:D
 
BeAChooser said:
What section of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to force individuals to buy products under threat of criminal penalty?
Click to expand...


Not sure, but aren't you already forced to buy car insurance if you drive a car?
 
Indeed, perhaps since emergency care is underwritten (by the insured) even for the uninsured, then failure to buy insurance can now be regarded as a violation of the rights of the insured, for which the insured are justified in extracting compensation (from the uninsured) in the form of forced insurance.

(Just trying to work it out using the libertarian toolkit)
 
Tumblehome said:
BeAChooser said:
What section of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to force individuals to buy products under threat of criminal penalty?
Click to expand...

Not sure, but aren't you already forced to buy car insurance if you drive a car?
Click to expand...


  1. You can choose not to own or drive a car. If you do choose to own and/or operate a car, there are certain responsibilities that go along with it, including the requirement that you establish the ability to pay for any damage that you might cause by doing so.
  2. The federal government does not enact nor enforce any law requiring you to have insurance to operate a car, nor does it have any authority to do so under the Constitution. This is the business of the states, not the federal government.
 
BeAChooser said:
The Constitution gives us equal protection under the law (14th Amendment). So why are Nebraskans being singled out as special? Why will we be forced to pay for their Medicaid costs? Sorry but this BRIBE to Nelson is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Click to expand...

Nebraskans ARE special!!! didn't you get the memo?

Republicans do the same thing when they are in charge and try to get their pet legislation approved.
 
I smell a rat. I don't believe that there is any provision in the bill that says Nebraska's bills will be paid and the others will not, as the Wall Street Journal implies. When we find out what the bill really says, I think we will find that this will be yet another demonstration of why the Wall Street Journal cannot be considered a credible source of news.

I am certain that Senator Nelson got some sort of special earmark, or something similar, for his state, but I am almost as certain that the WSJ is distorting what actually happened.
 
Meadmaker said:
I smell a rat. I don't believe that there is any provision in the bill that says Nebraska's bills will be paid and the others will not, as the Wall Street Journal implies. When we find out what the bill really says, I think we will find that this will be yet another demonstration of why the Wall Street Journal cannot be considered a credible source of news.

I am certain that Senator Nelson got some sort of special earmark, or something similar, for his state, but I am almost as certain that the WSJ is distorting what actually happened.
Click to expand...
I wish it was distorted, but it's not.

The WaPo take:
Nelson also secured full and permanent federal funding for his state to extend Medicaid eligibility to everyone below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. The bill would require all states to do so, but Nebraska alone would not be required to pay a portion of the additional cost after 2016.
Click to expand...
 
BeAChooser said:
I don't believe these health care bill items are Constitutional (and I'm sure there are many more). Care to discuss this?
:D
Click to expand...

Earmarks/porkbarrelling has always been around no matter which party has had the majority in Congress. I don't recall it ever being declared unconstitutional by any court.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Earmarks/porkbarrelling has always been around no matter which party has had the majority in Congress. I don't recall it ever being declared unconstitutional by any court.
Click to expand...
True, but this goes beyond that. Nebraska is being favorably treated by a program that applies to all states.
 
BeAChooser said:
And what about the "Individual Mandate". What section of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to force individuals to buy products under threat of criminal penalty?
Click to expand...

Again, if you claim the bill (assuming some version of it with the individual mandate passes into law) is unconstitutional, the burden of proof is on you to make that case, not on lawmakers to prove that it's not unconstitutional.

At any rate, IMO extending healthcare to a greater percentage of the population is certainly at least a prima facie case that this falls under Congress' authority to provide for the general welfare (Article I, Section 8).

As has been noted repeatedly, the commerce clause has been extended greatly through Supreme Court decisions over the years, too. While you might disagree with decisions made (particularly during the New Deal), it's up to you to make a case against them if you want to make your case that this bill is unconstitutional.

We've had this discussion on another thread not so long ago (though IIRC it had a misleading thread title).
 
WildCat said:
True, but this goes beyond that. Nebraska is being favorably treated by a program that applies to all states.
Click to expand...

That is hardly new either, look at how much Wyoming got per capita for anti terrorism money vs say NY. That it is an unfunded mandate for everyone but nebraska is the only real difference.
 
it unconstitutional to give money to a state to buy things that other states don't get? since when?

I'm sure Nebraska gets all sorts of corn subsidies that NY does'nt receive.
 
Sen. Ensign is trying to make the argument that the individual "universal" mandate violates the 5th Amendment:

CNN said:
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, has said the bill's requirement that all Americans purchase coverage is not authorized "by any of the limited enumerated powers granted to the federal government."

He also has argued the mandate violates the Fifth Amendment, which states that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Click to expand...
Linky.

He's attempting to table the bill with a point of order motion based on this argument.

I predict his motion will fail.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
  1. You can choose not to own or drive a car. If you do choose to own and/or operate a car, there are certain responsibilities that go along with it, including the requirement that you establish the ability to pay for any damage that you might cause by doing so.
  2. The federal government does not enact nor enforce any law requiring you to have insurance to operate a car, nor does it have any authority to do so under the Constitution. This is the business of the states, not the federal government.
Click to expand...
Minor detail.

The federal government does enforce a variety of laws, including requiring insurance, when you are on federal military bases and other types of federal reservations. You'll find a whole section of code regarding even how federal judges can do marriages, etc.

But that's specifically restricted in geography and scope. So this is an attempt at a rather gigantic "taking" of states rights.

Disregarding Joethe Juggler's manic droning, which does not affect the actual discussion, there is a serious discussion concerning the constitutionality of these schemes. That thugs in Congress and the White House do not care about constitutionality does not change that.
 
BeAChooser said:
The Constitution gives us equal protection under the law (14th Amendment). So why are Nebraskans being singled out as special?
Click to expand...

If the 14th Amendment actually gave Americans equal protection under the law then gays would be allowed to marry. However, like straight people, Nebraskans are somehow special.

Welcome to, as a poster put it recently:
Obama: Bush III
 
WildCat said:
I wish it was distorted, but it's not.

The WaPo take:
Click to expand...

Oh, well. Sometimes, what is too weird to believe happens to be true.

How bizarre.

To be fair, it isn't quite like I imagined it from the original description, or even from the WSJ article. Basically, the bill says that states would have to expand medicaid, and pay for part of the cost. Nebraska will get to expand medicaid, but the federal government (i.e. you and me) will pay. So, I'll pay my share of Michigan's medicaid expansion, and a portion of Nebraska's.

The reason it isn't quite like what I pictured is that it's really a case where the bill imposes an unfunded mandate on the states. Nelson said, "I'll vote for it if you remove the unfunded mandate." Reid said, "How about if we remove the unfunded mandate for Nebraska, but leave it in for everyone else?" Nelson agreed.

It's a rather absurd and stupid provision, but laws and sausages and all that.


Of course, if you want to get too hung up on partisan arguments against it, there's always the point to be made that if the Democratic leadership had only needed 51 votes instead of 60, they wouldn't have had to make that concession.

ETA: And it doesn't change the fact that the new, Murdochized, Wall Street Journal is still a piece of junk. The original link was still so filled with ranting that it was impossible to take seriously, because you would have to sift through each of the claims to figure out which ones were true, and which ones were wildly exaggerated, or taken out of context, or distorted severly. I just assume they all are until other evidence is presented.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom