Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

[Sloop]

Good. We agree on the facts, then. HR 3590 as passed the first time by the House was completely amended in the Senate, substituting all new language after the enacting clause. I'm saying that this has happened before, and the courts have already held that as long as the bill starts in the House, it can have every word replaced in the Senate and still satisfy the origination clause. That may seem to put undue emphasis on form over substance, but it is settled law. The TEFRA example from the prior post is probably the most relevant, because that was also a case of the complete substitution by the Senate of new language for old. However, although several Courts of Appeal came to the same conclusion, it didn't reach the Supreme Court. I will go with the following language from Rainey v. United States, 232 U. S. 310, 317 (1914), which illustrates what commentators call the "enrolled bill rule," the refusal of the Supreme Court to look beyond a bill's official designation as a House or Senate bill to decide origination clause questions:

It appears that the section was proposed by the Senate as an amendment to a bill for raising revenue which originated in the House. That is sufficient. Having become an enrolled and duly authenticated act of Congress, it is not for this Court to determine whether the amendment was or was not outside the purposes of the original bill.

I did not know that. However, I don't normally spend my days getting into that kind of detail over Congressional legislation . So, until I stumble across something to the contrary, I will accept your explanation. Make no mistake though, I still believe this is going to be a pissing contest in the months ahead.

[Goofproof]

[squid13]

I wonder if we'll have to pay that medical equipment tax on our supplies or any new machines we buy?

[Sloop]

GOOD ONE!

[Kerr]

GOOD ONE!

It infuriates the piss out of me how many people, including some on this board, would clearly sell their freedoms for the government to baby them. They're the same kind of people who would have been supporting the Redcoats.

[KSMike]

Think healthcare is expensive now? Wait until it's free.

The system we have doesn't work very well for enough people. I've gone from being one of the many who say "leave it alone," to one of those who believe we do need some sort of "universal" system. But I guarantee you, if the government owns it or runs it, we will have 2nd- or 3rd-world healthcare here. "No evidence?" Are you really saying that with a straight face?

And of course this is beyond the fact that healthcare isn't even the underlying motivation for this bill.

[SMenasco]

If I administer your health care and I can legally use force to achieve compliance, and I have determined the level of care you will pay for and receive, I will direct your actions and control your life. I think we have an obligation to provide care for those who can't afford it; but this particular bill has nothing to do with health care, in my opinion. It's just the vehicle to achieve ideological control. I just can't understand why some think the government can do large tasks efficiently (military excepted, although their procurement is also full of inefficiencies). Doesn't it make you wonder when a bill requires an additional 5,000 IRS agents and a budget increase of over 300 million dollars? Just in that one federal agency? Doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy for some reason. And I am not convinced that many doctors that have a viable practice would embrace this bill. I can understand previous comments regarding students being in favor of it, since they have primarily been in education and have not yet had any real business experience. We have the best health care in the world. Yes, I agree it needs streamlining. However, not by the federal government. Just my opinion.

[ChicagoGranny]

If I administer your health care and I can legally use force to achieve compliance, and I have determined the level of care you will pay for and receive, I will direct your actions and control your life. I think we have an obligation to provide care for those who can't afford it; but this particular bill has nothing to do with health care, in my opinion. It's just the vehicle to achieve ideological control. I just can't understand why some think the government can do large tasks efficiently (military excepted, although their procurement is also full of inefficiencies). Doesn't it make you wonder when a bill requires an additional 5,000 IRS agents and a budget increase of over 300 million dollars? Just in that one federal agency? Doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy for some reason. And I am not convinced that many doctors that have a viable practice would embrace this bill. I can understand previous comments regarding students being in favor of it, since they have primarily been in education and have not yet had any real business experience. We have the best health care in the world. Yes, I agree it needs streamlining. However, not by the federal government. Just my opinion.

No, not just your opinion, there are a great many of us who understand that centralized control from Washington is not a good thing for the citizens.

[PST]

Think healthcare is expensive now? Wait until it's free.

The system we have doesn't work very well for enough people. I've gone from being one of the many who say "leave it alone," to one of those who believe we do need some sort of "universal" system. But I guarantee you, if the government owns it or runs it, we will have 2nd- or 3rd-world healthcare here. "No evidence?" Are you really saying that with a straight face?

And of course this is beyond the fact that healthcare isn't even the underlying motivation for this bill.

Then you should be pleased with the PPACA. The whole point of the recent Supreme Court case is whether the federal government can require the purchase of insurance from a private insurer. There is no doubt that it can require the purchase of government-run insurance. That's Social Security and Medicare. The controversy arose only because the PPACA establishes a universal system not owned or run by the government. If it had been struck down as unconstitutional, then the country would have had to abandon the idea of universal coverage altogether or accepted a universal government-run program. The PPACA is the last chance for universal but not governmental. It should have more friends among conservatives.

[Kitatonic]

This is not a new government system, Obamacare only retains your Medicare and expands Medicaid coverage to the poor. The Federal govt will pay for those states like Texas and Kentucky, to cover that fourth of their population by increasing the income level to qualify for Medicaid.

Since 90% of us are insurers, your insurance will not change. You will not have your premium raised to cover those uninsured free riders. Those uninsured will have to pay a non-enforced penalty.

The Republicans propose High-Risk pools. Think about it---what insurance pool would insure all of us with sleep apnea? Do you think your rate would remain the same?

I'll take the pre-existing disease coverage that Obamacare requires.

[KSMike]

I'll take the pre-existing disease coverage that Obamacare requires.

And in exchange, you'll forfeit every other right that any bureaucrat, now or in the future, decides is contrary to public health. SUV's, guns, movie popcorn, the list is literally endless.

If I administer your health care and I can legally use force to achieve compliance, and I have determined the level of care you will pay for and receive, I will direct your actions and control your life.

Exactly. You folks who think you were just given a panacea - you just lost everything you hold dear.

I'll not comment any further on this. I try very hard to avoid these types of threads since none of us are going to convince anyone else. I just had a moment of weakness.

[DreamStalker]

I'll take the pre-existing disease coverage that Obamacare requires.

And in exchange, you'll forfeit every other right that any bureaucrat, now or in the future, decides is contrary to public health. SUV's, guns, movie popcorn, the list is literally endless.

If I administer your health care and I can legally use force to achieve compliance, and I have determined the level of care you will pay for and receive, I will direct your actions and control your life.

Exactly. You folks who think you were just given a panacea - you just lost everything you hold dear.

I'll not comment any further on this. I try very hard to avoid these types of threads since none of us are going to convince anyone else. I just had a moment of weakness.

Oh common! Since 9/11 you, (WE the People) have already forfeit our most important rights ... the BILL of Rights. You're pissing in the wind with all this Obamacrap, we've already lost it all. Tipping Point Democracy

[Goofproof]

There is some light at the end to the tunnel, Free Healthcare and everything else you can ask for paid for by the good U.S.of A. All the illegals come here to lock on to the sow's tit. Then the U.S. outsources the medical care to Mexico, like they do with all the other jobs. We and the illegals have to go there for treatment, at least some of the illegals will be going home. We can finance the trip by bring backs drugs to sell in our neibhorhoods, we will have work, and pay no taxes. The government can pay for it all by printing worthless paper money, not backed by anything. Jim

[49er]

Those of you who opposed the Romney/Obama plan (Obama plan was modeled after Romney's Massachusetts plan), what do you propose as an alternative so that we have universal coverage on par with other countries?

49er

[ChicagoGranny]