Health Care Law Declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Boxes&Books

Is anyone surprised by this? The part related to the Judge and his affiliates.
Video is 7 minutes long..... it's pretty good info....


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#40650319

WaveCameCrashin

sweet adeline wrote:

it's also a law that you must carry a certain amount of auto insurance to be able to drive a car, but that's not being challenged.

Read and learn...

http://www.antemedius.com/content/indiv ... onal-power I
Finally, proponents of the mandate often cite the fact that states require drivers to purchase auto insurance as justifying a federal individual mandate for health insurance. This is a facile comparison that ignores the constitutional differences between federal and state authority to regulate. As noted above, Congress can only legislate when there is a specific provision of Article I of the Constitution that authorizes it to enact that type of law. Conversely, the states have virtually unlimited legislative authority to pass laws that foster the public welfare, health and safety. Driving is a privilege, and the states are free to impose any reasonable condition on the exercise of that privilege that they choose. In any event, the states have limited the auto insurance requirement to the purchase of liability insurance to cover injuries sustained by third parties. No state requires drivers to purchase insurance to cover their own injuries.

For single-payer advocates, a very powerful argument is that, while the individual mandate to purchase private health insurance is unconstitutional, Congress can lawfully tax to support a government financed health insurance program. Article I empowers Congress to use its taxing powers in support of government programs that foster the public welfare; this is the constitutional authority for Social Security and Medicare. But to extend that authority to requiring Americans to purchase a private commodity raises profound civil liberties issues. If Congress can compel the purchase of insurance from a for profit insurance company, it can compel the purchase of any commodity if there is an arguable public policy to support it. The auto industry is collapsing? Forget Cash for Clunkers, just order Americans to buy cars or tax them if they don't. Obesity crisis? Order Americans to join health clubs, or tax them if they don't. If Congress gets away with this, there is no stopping point and Big Business will have succeeded in making Americans into involuntary consumers whenever it so chooses.


and for those of you that say it falls under the commerce clause...


Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Therefore, in order for Congress to have the authority to require Americans to purchase health insurance, the purchase of health insurance must constitute “commerce” within the meaning of the Commerce Clause. It does not.

In 1982, the Supreme Court declared that, in order for a commodity to be considered an article in commerce, it must be capable of being sold. Sporhase v. Nebraska, 458 U.S. 941 at 949 -- 950 (1982). While there is no doubt that the sale of health insurance by an insurer constitutes commerce, it does not follow that the purchase – or more precisely, the failure to purchase – health insurance by a consumer also constitutes commerce. Health insurance, once purchased by a consumer, is not capable of being further sold in commerce because there is no market for it; who would purchase a health insurance policy naming someone else as the insured?

In order to understand the point better, it might be helpful to contrast health insurance with life insurance. Because paid-up life insurance has a cash value, an industry has developed in purchasing life insurance benefits from terminally ill patients. Known as viatical settlement companies, they will pay a percentage of the value of an insurance policy to a terminally ill patient if the corporation is named as the beneficiary of the policy. The patient gets the cash up front, to pay medical bills or to support his family, and the corporation makes a profit on its investment when the insured dies. Because there is a market for life insurance benefits, the purchase of those benefits may be regulated under the Commerce Clause to make sure that the patient is not coerced by the Tony Soprano Benevolent Society to name it as beneficiary.

But there is no market for health insurance benefits once the policy is issued. No one would buy my health insurance, because no one other than I can derive any benefit from it. Since there is no market, health insurance is not an article of commerce once issued. If it is not an article of commerce, Congress lacks authority under the Commerce Clause to require me to purchase it.

There are two Supreme Court cases that proponents of the individual mandate often cite in support of their position that Congress may require individuals to purchase health insurance. The first case involved government regulation of the amount of acreage used by farmers to grow wheat. A farmer who was fined for exceeding his acreage allotment challenged the fine, asserting that since he was using the excess acreage for personal consumption (he used it either to feed his chickens or to make bread for his family), Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate that excess acreage. The Court rejected this argument, pointing out that even wheat grown for personal consumption is marketable and that therefore the farmer’s excess acreage affected the supply and demand for wheat in interstate commerce. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 at 137 (1942). Using similar reasoning, the Supreme Court recently affirmed congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the production and use of marijuana as applied to individuals who personally use marijuana for medicinal purposes under state laws that legalize such use. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). Again, Congress had commerce clause authority to regulate personal consumption in this context because marijuana for home consumption is “a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market.” 545 U.S. at 18.

Unlike wheat or marijuana, health insurance is not a fungible commodity and is therefore not marketable. Again, no one would purchase my health insurance – it is personal to me and cannot be sold for any price

inmytree

this is fantastic...

Now my premiums can continue to rise and rise to cover the cost for those who receive care and won't be able to pay for it...

gotta love those activist judges....

TriumphantAngel

so what's the answer? clearly what we have now is not working.

i really hope that people realize that while they have been so hell bent on shouting down the public option, all they have been doing is lobbying to keep pouring money into the pockets of insurance companies who have been the ones rationing healthcare that we have today. the health insurance companies do not care about you. if they did they would not focus so much of their time trying to get out of paying claims and compromising yours and your families health.

you don't trust the government to look after your health and yet you trust the health insurance companies who deny coverage and then find an excuse to cancel your coverage as soon as you get sick. for serious?

what's the good of having some of the best doctors and facilities in the world if the people don't have access to them in a timely and affordable manner?

Jason P

The Health Care law continues to be one of the most perplexing major issues for me to analyze. I can't trust most of the information on how it will affect me because both sides are fighting to make is sound great or evil.

The only thing that I know is true is that you will now be forced to have healthcare. But, we still have the same healthcare system, correct? Same lawsuits, same insurers, same everything ... and everyone is in agreement that the current system has major issues, correct?

Does the healthcare law actually attempt to improve the system or is it just forcing everyone to have health care?
It's not giving us free healthcare is it?
Does it limit malpractice awards?
Does it lower the cost of prescription medicine?
Does it free businesses of some of the financial burden of providing insurance?
Will it make healthcare more affordable?

Best of Times

unsung wrote:

I still baffled as to why the unions, that supported and drove this into law, are now applying to opt out of it.

Anyone know?

Because it's a shitty deal.

Shawshank

I think many people were, and still are duped by the myth that this law was going to somehow make insurance more affordable and allow everyone to have coverage with very little out of pocket expense. Some people I know were excited because they felt this was finally a crackdown on the insurance companies. Then when the few marbles they still have rolling around finally clicked together, they realized that this law was nothing more than a gravy train for insurance. I mean think about it, there are millions of people uninsured because they either don't want to spend the money on insurance, don't think they need it, or they don't have the money. These people would then be mandated to carry insurance. How is this not a good thing for the insurance companies??

The best thing that could ever happen with health care is to allow insurance companies to do commerce across state lines, and additionally implement some regulation that prevents them from dropping clients because they get sick. So if I want to buy insurance from a provider in Colorado, I can. Also, you'd avoid hassles if you moved out of state and had a pre-existing condition. By opening up the market place, you'd also encourage competition. Look at auto insurance commercials as an example of an open insurance market. These commercials not only focus on price, but also ancillary features like: "we pay the fastest", "we reward you for not getting into an accident", "we have the lowest rates", "we'll give you a rental car", "we won't drop you if you have an accident". Now imagine that being the case for health insurance, which it can be if the market place wasn't so closed to specific localities.

Best of Times

prfctlefts wrote:

sweet adeline wrote:

it's also a law that you must carry a certain amount of auto insurance to be able to drive a car, but that's not being challenged.

Read and learn...

http://www.antemedius.com/content/indiv ... onal-power I
Finally, proponents of the mandate often cite the fact that states require drivers to purchase auto insurance as justifying a federal individual mandate for health insurance. This is a facile comparison that ignores the constitutional differences between federal and state authority to regulate. As noted above, Congress can only legislate when there is a specific provision of Article I of the Constitution that authorizes it to enact that type of law. Conversely, the states have virtually unlimited legislative authority to pass laws that foster the public welfare, health and safety. Driving is a privilege, and the states are free to impose any reasonable condition on the exercise of that privilege that they choose. In any event, the states have limited the auto insurance requirement to the purchase of liability insurance to cover injuries sustained by third parties. No state requires drivers to purchase insurance to cover their own injuries.

For single-payer advocates, a very powerful argument is that, while the individual mandate to purchase private health insurance is unconstitutional, Congress can lawfully tax to support a government financed health insurance program. Article I empowers Congress to use its taxing powers in support of government programs that foster the public welfare; this is the constitutional authority for Social Security and Medicare. But to extend that authority to requiring Americans to purchase a private commodity raises profound civil liberties issues. If Congress can compel the purchase of insurance from a for profit insurance company, it can compel the purchase of any commodity if there is an arguable public policy to support it. The auto industry is collapsing? Forget Cash for Clunkers, just order Americans to buy cars or tax them if they don't. Obesity crisis? Order Americans to join health clubs, or tax them if they don't. If Congress gets away with this, there is no stopping point and Big Business will have succeeded in making Americans into involuntary consumers whenever it so chooses.


and for those of you that say it falls under the commerce clause...


Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Therefore, in order for Congress to have the authority to require Americans to purchase health insurance, the purchase of health insurance must constitute “commerce” within the meaning of the Commerce Clause. It does not.

In 1982, the Supreme Court declared that, in order for a commodity to be considered an article in commerce, it must be capable of being sold. Sporhase v. Nebraska, 458 U.S. 941 at 949 -- 950 (1982). While there is no doubt that the sale of health insurance by an insurer constitutes commerce, it does not follow that the purchase – or more precisely, the failure to purchase – health insurance by a consumer also constitutes commerce. Health insurance, once purchased by a consumer, is not capable of being further sold in commerce because there is no market for it; who would purchase a health insurance policy naming someone else as the insured?

In order to understand the point better, it might be helpful to contrast health insurance with life insurance. Because paid-up life insurance has a cash value, an industry has developed in purchasing life insurance benefits from terminally ill patients. Known as viatical settlement companies, they will pay a percentage of the value of an insurance policy to a terminally ill patient if the corporation is named as the beneficiary of the policy. The patient gets the cash up front, to pay medical bills or to support his family, and the corporation makes a profit on its investment when the insured dies. Because there is a market for life insurance benefits, the purchase of those benefits may be regulated under the Commerce Clause to make sure that the patient is not coerced by the Tony Soprano Benevolent Society to name it as beneficiary.

But there is no market for health insurance benefits once the policy is issued. No one would buy my health insurance, because no one other than I can derive any benefit from it. Since there is no market, health insurance is not an article of commerce once issued. If it is not an article of commerce, Congress lacks authority under the Commerce Clause to require me to purchase it.

There are two Supreme Court cases that proponents of the individual mandate often cite in support of their position that Congress may require individuals to purchase health insurance. The first case involved government regulation of the amount of acreage used by farmers to grow wheat. A farmer who was fined for exceeding his acreage allotment challenged the fine, asserting that since he was using the excess acreage for personal consumption (he used it either to feed his chickens or to make bread for his family), Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate that excess acreage. The Court rejected this argument, pointing out that even wheat grown for personal consumption is marketable and that therefore the farmer’s excess acreage affected the supply and demand for wheat in interstate commerce. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 at 137 (1942). Using similar reasoning, the Supreme Court recently affirmed congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the production and use of marijuana as applied to individuals who personally use marijuana for medicinal purposes under state laws that legalize such use. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). Again, Congress had commerce clause authority to regulate personal consumption in this context because marijuana for home consumption is “a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market.” 545 U.S. at 18.

Unlike wheat or marijuana, health insurance is not a fungible commodity and is therefore not marketable. Again, no one would purchase my health insurance – it is personal to me and cannot be sold for any price

Well said... :clap: :clap: