So I don't understand something. If health care mandates are unconstitutional what about Social

[yellowcanine]

Security and Medicare? As I see it, the only way the SCOTUS can throw out HCR is to also throw out SS and Medicare. And I believe SS at least has already been tested in court so it ain't happening. What am I missing here?

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. Not this shit again.....

Social Security and Medicare = government programs

United HellCare, Shitna, Blue UpsideDown Cross - Private corporations where 40% off the top goes straight into some fucking felon's Swiss bank account.

Any questions?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[girl gone mad]

41. By that logic..

the government could force purchase of any private product, under penalty of fine.

Is that really the country you want to live in?

This may be a case of "be careful what you wish for."

[Matariki]

48. Don't want to pay a company? The gov't fines you.

And you see no problem with that.

"I'd say "any questions" but you've proven yourself beyond any capacity to absorb simple truths."

[RB TexLa]

6. What felons?

[FarLeftFist]

11. Just saying for the record:

the Second Militia Act of 1792, required the U.S. civilian population to purchase a long list of military equipment:

Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

This Act became law only a few years after the Constitution was ratified, in President George Washington’s first term. Many of the Members of Congress who voted for the Act also were members of the Philadelphia Convention that wrote the Constitution.

------------------------------------------

Edit: spelling and to credit thinkprogress

[Sebastian Doyle]

17. Well, there's that "well regulated militia" that the 2nd Amendment talks about

I doubt they would have wrote such a law today requiring someone to buy from a "defense" contractor though.

I'm also fairly certain the musket makers of 1792 didn't make $55,000/hour (or even the 1792 equivalent of that dollar amount) like Steven Hemsley (of United Health Care) does.

[FarLeftFist]

24. Wouldn't it be ironic if we used their love of the 2nd amendment....

To rule in this case. (btw we all love the 2nd amendment, we're just not paranoid about it going anywhere like they are)

[TorchTheWitch]

33. that was only for those enrolled in a militia

And militias consisted of volunteers. In other words, if you wanted to be in a militia you had to provide your own basic supplies a that time most of which were supplies that most already had. And because militias protected the local citizens, those who wanted to enroll but couldn't provide all their own supplies were very often supplied them by members of the community who couldn't or wouldn't enroll in a militia themselves.

To compare this to every US citizen now having to pay hugely expensive premiums to a private for-profit health insurance company is absurd.

[Lord Magus]

59. Enrollment wasn't optional at that time.

At least not if you were a white male. As we all know everybody else didn't count back then. But every white man aged 18 to 45 was enrolled by that same law in the militia, whether they wanted to be or not. The only reason it didn't get expanded to all men was that by the time we got around recognizing non-whites as citizens, we had a standing army, and thus the militia was no longer a major part of national defense.

[grahamhgreen]

49. Note - these were not from specific companies, the mandate is.

[Leopolds Ghost]

51. The reason the Teabaggers call themselves "Tea Party Republicans"

is in reference to the whole Stamp Act excise tax requiring Americans to purchase from specific companies thing. Although ironically the Stamp Act protests were because the American economy depended on smuggling and were opposed to importation of cheap British tea. But the notion of being required to purchase certain goods from certain companies is beyond right-wing; it's mercantilism.

[yellowcanine]

13. You have choices though - one doesn't have to buy from a particular company.

Actually there is more choice than with SS/Medicare, where there is no choice.

I can buy my own plan from several different companies or I can go on my spouse's plan - again, with a choice of several different companies.

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. I have a choice of the same five phone, cable, internet providers nationwide thanks to Telco Act

Is there a bill requiring me to purchase goods from one of the five? If so, do I need to tell them I'm required to purchase from them, knowing that all five will raise their asking price to the maximum economic rate that benefits them since I'll have no one to run to?

[dflprincess]

2. Social Security & Medicare are payroll taxes.

You are not required to purchase a product from a private company.

But give the DLC time, they have both SS & Medicare on their hit list so I imagine their next "reform" will require you to hand your retirement money over to a private investment firm.

[Mari333]

4. thank you

[KittyWampus]

7. So? You say that like it makes a difference. Then don't pay the private company and pay a fine/tax.

[eridani]

26. Why should I have to pay mass murderers to stand between me and my doctor?

Medicare bureaucrats never get a single bonus for denying claims.

[yellowcanine]

9. If you listen to the Republicans the mandate is what they mostly are objecting to and

saying it is unconstitutional. I do not see a significance difference between mandating contributions to government run retirement and an elderly health care program and mandating purchase of health insurance from a private company. I don't think the case can be made that one is Constitutional but the other not.

[Fumesucker]

12. What then can the government *not* force you to buy from a private company?

The economy is bad, people should buy new cars, why can't the government force a purchase of a new car?

We need to eat more vegetable, should the government be able to force us to buy fresh vegetables from private sellers?

[yellowcanine]

15. Health care is not like buying a car - a person without health care depends on society to pay if

there is illness or an accident. There is no comparison to your examples. Reasonable people can and do make distinctions between different kinds of services.

[Fumesucker]

21. But you can get out of having insurance by paying a fine..

So society will still be paying for you..

[yellowcanine]

23. Regardless of arguments which can be made, the fact remains that Constitutional law and precedence

is on the side of the HCR bill. All the arguments one could make about whether the government could mandate this or that doesn't change that fact. We are not talking about cars or vegetables. We are talking about health insurance. The proper comparison is to other government mandates like SS and Medicare which are basically insurance programs as well.

[Fumesucker]

28. This is not the same as Medicare or SS and any rational person knows it..

If bushie had tried to put forth a program wherein the public was mandated to purchase private insurance 95% or more of DU would have been screaming anger about it.

Private insurance is not a government program no matter how much some people try to convince the rest of us it is.

[yellowcanine]

30. By "any rational person" do you mean Obama's spokesperson?

"To that I say, 'Bring it on,'" said White House domestic policy chief Melody Barnes, who cited similar suits filed over Social Security and the Voting Rights Act when those were passed.

[Fumesucker]

36. Salesmen don't work on rationality they work on what sells..

The ultimate arbiter of what is Constitutional is the SCOTUS, what the rest of us think about it matters not at all.

And I've heard that phrase "Bring it on" somewhere before in a political context, that was a bit tin eared considering how it was used the last time and what liberals thought of it then.

[yellowcanine]

38. It isn't just the spokes people saying this - I have been following this discussion pretty closely.

Constitutional scholars and university law professors to a person are saying that these suits are not going anywhere - and indeed they are citing SS, Medicare, Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, etc as precedents. They could all be wrong. But it is doubtful.

[Fumesucker]

40. I think we will rue the day that we set this precedent..

Setting the fox to guard the chicken coop is seldom a good idea.

Government programs are one thing, private industry is entirely another, haven't we suffered enough at the hands of the private health insurance corporations?

[yellowcanine]

43. My point is not whether it is wise or not - I am saying it IS Constitutional.

I would have preferred single payer, Medicare buy in, or a government option

And if we are going to worry about foxes guarding chicken coops we better worry about:

The Federal Reserve and the Banks
The FCC and the broadcast industry.
The FAA and the airlines.
The USDA and the agricultural industry.
The NHTSA and the car companies.
The FDA and the drug companies
The FTC and just about everyone
The ICC and railroads and trucking companies.

You get the idea...

[Leopolds Ghost]

57. You can't say it's constitutional or not if it's never been done before, per CBO.

[girl gone mad]

37. Hate to break it to you, but..

a whole lot of people with insurance depend on society to pay for their coverage, too.

And society does pay for public transportation for people without cars, so..

[yellowcanine]

44. I really don't see how those points negate my argument at all.

All transportation (including private vehicle) is subsidized and users pay fees or taxes as well. Public transportation is not free unless you count sidewalks and bike paths as public transportation. And they are not free either if one considers that property and income taxes which pay for them. This is not really a useful debate, imo.

[Leopolds Ghost]

56. Wow, do you believe sidewalks etc are only useful if cap rates or cost-benefit ratio justify it?

No need for pay phones, public toilets, public plazas, or water fountains unless they see a certain level of use AND benefit the economy somehow right?

You should be opposed to the whole notion of insurance since it depends on the people who get coverage getting more than they paid in. The insured are Deadbeats who drive up the costs of those of us who have insurance and don't need it! :sarcasm:

[yellowcanine]

58. You do go on. I did not say any of that. I don't see any purpose in debating someone who puts words

in my mouth.

[Leopolds Ghost]

55. Yes, but the whole unstated rationale is that uninsured deadbeats are the problem with health care.

The architects of the bill agree. They want to de-socialize medicine and indigent care.

[Sebastian Doyle]

18. Well, if they forced farmers to grow organic vegetables from native seeds

that really wouldn't be so bad. :)

[Fumesucker]

22. Great Ghu! We wouldn't want to be socialist vegetarians would we?

Vegetarians eat vegetables..

Beware of humanitarians..

[hansberrym]

29. Why can't Congress say we wish to regulate this or that, so you must pay a fine,

but if you don't want to pay more than $700, you can opt to pay $700.

By giving you an option to avoid paying more than $700, they brazenly claim it is not a direct tax.

[dflprincess]

34. If the government can't withhold the Medicare and FICA tax from your check

how can they withhold the income taxes that pay for other government programs? Or are you going to argue that all taxes are unconstitutional?

BTW, Social Security is not just a retirement program.

[yellowcanine]

39. ? I am not making that argument. And I know that SS is more than a retirement program.

I fail to see your point here. Where did I say that Medicare, FICA or income taxes cannot be withheld from your check? I am saying the opposite in fact and I am saying that for the same reasons health care insurance premiums can be withheld from your check.

[dflprincess]

42. You're arguing that there is no difference between tax funded programs

and the government, in essence, becoming the collection agency for a private company. There is a big difference. Social Security and Medicare exist for the public good, the private companies exist for their own enrichment and will continue to make their money by doing their best to block our access to care.

[yellowcanine]

45. Nope I am not. I am saying the mandates are Constitutional. I am not arguing that they are wise.

Again - My first preference would have been single payer, followed by a government option, followed by Medicare buy in. Mandate for purchasing from a regulated private insurance company was second to last, status quo was last. We now will have no refusal of insurance for preexisting conditions, dependents are covered up to age 26, and many more people will be covered. It is nowhere near perfect but it is a lot better than the status quo.

[Leopolds Ghost]

53. They object to it too, and...?

Sloppy thinking to assume that if a Republican opposes it, there must be something good about it.

[yellowcanine]

19. And for what it is worth the WH is making the same argument I am about SS.

'"To that I say, 'Bring it on,'" said White House domestic policy chief Melody Barnes, who cited similar suits filed over Social Security and the Voting Rights Act when those were passed.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4317429

[leftstreet]

3. oh brother

[SmileyRose]

8. You have to remember

their target audience doesn't think Medicare is government controlled.

[junior college]

10. I haven't been paying too much attention to the world around me but

I'm glad I'm not locked into my job anymore due to being worried about my family losing all our benefits. As far as I can tell, and I've had a few beers, this HCP sucks but(t) it's better than what we had before, and the fact the so many teabagger Republican a-holes are pissed off about it is an added bonus. They're more pissed off about this than they were when Obama won the election. You gotta love it.

[leftstreet]

14. Help me understand what you're saying...

You've been locked into your job because of the healthcare benefits...but if you leave your job you'll have to purchase the benefits privately. So, you expect that to be more cost effective for you?

:shrug:

[FarLeftFist]

16. I think he's saying if he loses his job he will still keep his employee HC

[earth mom]

20. Wow-so you think FOR PROFIT insurance companies are the same as government run

agencies like Social Security and Medicare?

You might want to educate yourself on that one.

:eyes:

[yellowcanine]

25. Not what I said. It is the mandate for a particular purpose which is in question.

And as I noted, Obama's spokespersons are making the same argument I am.


'"To that I say, 'Bring it on,'" said White House domestic policy chief Melody Barnes, who cited similar suits filed over Social Security and the Voting Rights Act when those were passed.'

[safeinOhio]

32. but the wingers say the government

has now taken over the insurance companies:sarcasm: so by their standards it is like buying gov insurance like SS.

Anyway, at least there will be some regulations on them now.

[yellowcanine]

35. Exactly. People forget that HCR puts mandates on insurance companies also.

Dependents are covered up to age 26 and they can't deny you insurance for preexisting conditions or drop you id you get sick, for example. No small things. Look, in no way do I think this is a perfect bill. I prefer a single payer system or at least a government option. But it is way better than nothing and people should remember that when SS and Medicare were first enacted they were not as comprehensive as they are today either.

[BlooInBloo]

27. They aren't unconstitutional. Don't worry about it.

[yellowcanine]

31. I don't think so either. But judging by the responses here a lot of DUers disagree.

[Greyhound]

46. SS and Medicare are government, you know, that thing that represents you

if you bother to make it do so. There is no "health care mandate", there is only a mandate to purchase insurance.

[yellowcanine]

47. semantics, Read my responses. I think I have made my points clear.

[grahamhgreen]

50. Even if they aren't, it will be a better bill if we do get rid of the mandate!

Although, I think there are. Has to be revamped as a tax.

[depakid]

54. Social Security has been upheld on separate grounds

Indeed- wholly separate, as it's the only case I'm aware of that relies on the "general welfare" wording in the preamble as opposed to referencing enumerated powers in the body of the document.