AHIP Backlash

Insurers must be easier to fight against than fellow Democrats.

So let’s see, government officials, because an industry dares to criticize them, decide to enact punitive legislation. Hmmmmm. And Jay doesn’t have any questions about that?
.
And does anyone think that premiums won’t go up under this system?

So what happens if the “mandate” is declared unconstitutional?

The state can draft you and send you off to war against your will, tax you against your will, but can’t insist that you provide health insurance for yourself and your family? It would be a very interesting decision indeed.
.
Of course, after Scalia’s opinion that the cross isn’t really a religious symbol (based upon the legal principle of ‘making $hit up’), an attempt by the right wing courts to kill the mandate wouldn’t be surprising.

The ability of the sovereign to raise an army is different from a tax. Yeah, I get the incongruity, but . . . .
.
I don’t know that the federal government can force people to have health insurance.

The principle is the same as denying highway funds for States that don’t have particular safety laws in place. The power to tax includes the power to influence behavior with taxes. It happens all the time and it has already passed Constitutional muster in numerous forums.
.

I share spob’s curiosity about the legality of the mandate. (And I want one!)

The examples given are about federal dollars and projects. That’s not the same as mandating someone buy from a private company.

Short of a public option that anyone could buy into it sure seems wrong.

Clearly I’m not a lawyer but I have been wondering about this.

So the idea would be to commandeer the states into using their police power to force people to buy insurance–problem is that there would be a federal excise tax if not done.

By the way, PD, it’s the spending power, not the taxing power. Before you pontificate about the law, please know what the terms are.

Well, we are mandated to buy car insurance before we can drive one. That is through private companies. i realize health is different from auto, but still…

You don’t “have to” drive.
.
I’m not trying to be a pill I’m honestly curious.
.
There must be an answer if we are this far down the road.

There’s a fundamental difference between driving and having to be insured and living and having to be insured. So, Ivy, that’s not so easily answered.

OT, but Tapper’s reporting that Anita Dunn is now saying that her reference to Mao as her favorite political philosopher was a joke. Look at the speech. That wasn’t a joke–she was deadly serious.
.
So on top of being stupid (I mean, really, the Beatles told us all we need to know about Chairman Mao.), she’s a liar too. So how can ANYTHING she says be taken at face value.
.
The Swamp folks post about Michelle Bachmann. Well, Anita Dunn, who thrust herself in the news, has a crush on Mao, one of the worst dictators of the 20th Century, and is lying about her crush, and the Swamp posters have nothing to say.
.
Sorry guys, gotta call bias here.

Mandates for health insurance coverage are no different than mandates for highways, schools, fire stations, police officers, etc. You don’t get to decide that you, personally, don’t use those things and thus shunt the cost of them on to everyone else — right up until the time you call for a cop, your house catches fire, or you go to the emergency room.

This is pretty basic 1000+ year old common law stuff.

Forget the Highway funds comparison. The Government has the power to levy taxes to influence behavior. Taxes on Cigarettes and liquor come to mind. Penalties for failing to file taxes come to mind. Taxes on guys who make outrageous year end bonuses while driving the banking industry into the ground qualify. (Not that they’re a good idea, but they aren’t unconstitutional) tax deductions for Charity giving or Green infrastructure improvement all qualify and are all Constitutional.

acme, when people cite 1000 year common law for the ability of the federal government, which is a government of limited powers, to impose a personal requirement that people purchase health insurance, the horselaughs just come.
.
In order for this to be Constitutional, as I see it, it has to be a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause power or the Spending power. The power to tax probably doesn’t get it done.
.
It doesn’t seem liike a slamdunk to me.

Spob, for the love of god, will you please just up the shutf@ck!

Because only a radical revolutionary would quote Mao Zedong once, let alone over and over.

7/2007:

The WWS: “How you doin’ Senator?”

McCain: “You know Michael, in the words of Chairman Mao, it’s always darkest before it’s totally black…(laughing)

7/2007:

Despite the meltdown of his near-bankrupt campaign, McCain showed no outward signs of despair–not even when one reporter impishly asked him whether we have a better chance of winning in Iraq than he does at winning the nomination. I braced for a flash of McCain’s famous temper, but instead he just chuckled. “In the words of Chairman Mao, it’s always darkest before it’s black,” McCain cracked.

4/2008:

“I think we had some difficulties and righted the ship,” McCain told Letterman. “For a while there, I was reminded of the words of Chairman Mao, who said it’s always darkest before it’s totally black.”

And just five days ago,

While McCain said he could not predict what would happen in the next presidential election, the Arizona Republican says he is open to many potential nominees for his party — including Palin.

“Look let’s let a thousand flowers bloom. Let’s come up with a winning combination the next time. … let’s all go through the process, rather than condemning anybody’s chances,” he says, reacting to recent comments about Palin by Schmidt.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/10/16/john-mccain-loves-to-quote-mao-zedong/

And if the last GOP nominee isn’t enough, how about the king of the stupid, W?

“If Only I Were A Dictator, by George W. Bush”

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Yes, George W. Bush has stated he’d prefer to be a dictator at least three times, according to BuzzFlash.com:

“You don’t get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.” Describing what it’s like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)

– From Paul Begala’s “Is Our Children Learning?”

“I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other, but that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” Bush joked.

– CNN.com, December 18, 2000

“A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it, ” [Bush] said.

– Business Week, July 30, 2001

Paul, your legal analysis is, um, less than compelling.

First of all, jcapan, Dunn wasn’t joking. She said that Mao was one of her two fave political philosophers.
.
Second of all, she’s a liar. Tapper’s reporting her “It was a joke defense.” No one, and I mean no one, can look at that speech and conclude that this dimwit was anything but serious.

Dunno if this will work:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/whitehouse/photos/0,27424,1929327,00.html

“Why yes, dear. If I look real close I can see Boehner’s brain…”

The federal government mandated that people pay into a retirement plan (Social Security). Mandating health insurance (something else for their own good) doesn’t seem like much of a legal stretch.

But that’s a tax based on income . . . . a little bit different from mandating that someone purchase something.

Yeah, c’mon Paul, get yourself educated…

“educated” is a link (%$#@ Preview)

Becasue everyone knows that when you compare Mao and Mother Theresa in the same sentence it HAS to be because you believe they are exactly alike.
.
spob’s basic dishonesty comes to the fore yet again….

spob’s inadvertantly championing the public option.
.
Rather than requiring you to purchase somthing, they could instead simply levy a tax for a service they provide directly. If the government itself provides the insurance, all your “Constitutional” concerns instanly disappear!

Look at the f’in speech:
.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/15/anita-dunn-a-corruptocrat-flack-and-a-mao-cheerleader/
.
Would someone joke about Hitler or the piker Pol Pot being their favorite political philosopher? No.
.
Anita Dunn has taken on Fox. She’s in the news. This should be covered.

It’s a little more complicated than that, PD.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2009/09/is-an-individual-health-insurance-mandate-constitutional.html
.
Some thoughts and links on the topic.

It is a tax-based mandate, but not all that different from a car insurance mandate. While you don’t have to drive, you also don’t have to work. If you are a passenger in a car, the person driving has to have insurance. Similar principle.

That “analysis” seems a little weak. Could the government require me to buy an apple on that theory? A car?

Okay Spob, I gave it a shot.
.
I, erroneously, thought you were curious about the issue
.
Continue on with your scare quotes and pronouncements that things are weak believing that you are addressing any argument made.

An insurance mandate probably doesn’t technically pass constitutional muster but the courts would likely let it stand anyway on some weak @$$ legal theory.

The comparisons to police and fire services are inaccurate because those organizations are funded directly by the state and are not private for profit enterprises which you are being individually required to buy from. To make the police/fire comparison accurate would require hospitals and doctors to be fully owned, run, and operated by the state.

Car insurance is also an inaccurate comparison because you can choose to just not drive/own a car, even if that is a difficult/impractical option for many people, it’s still at a minimum theoretically possible. That option doesn’t exist with health insurance because you can’t choose not to live (well, you can, but it’s called suicide and really not recommended for anyone).

Sorry, of course you are all right. I just happen to live in an area where it is nearly impossible not to drive. Not a good thing, but it does constrict the vision.

PNNTO, I asked a relevant question–i.e., what’s the limiting principle on the “Hey, we can do this because the transaction we coerce is in interstate commerce.”? That’s not simply doing pronouncements.
.
Get that right.

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjcyZDAwNzNhOWM5NmM4OTA1YmZmNWFkMGRmNGM3MDQ=
.
Wow, this guy tells us to stand aside, then tells us he wants our input. What a jerk.

So you deny highway funds for not following safety laws? So the highways get worse making them more unsafe? THat’s the goal,, now I understand

Yep that’s government logic!

And the government tries to influence behavior by taxes? So if we want to control teen-age pregancies the answer would be to tax them? I will agree that it worked when they put on the luxury tax on boats. It put shipbuilders out of business. Oh that’s right, that wasn’t what the goal of the tax.

Lesson: Government should stay out of the business of influening behavior.

The principle of car insurance is to protect against unisured drivers. So if you are in an accident you will be covered either by the other drivers policy or your own.

Health insurance is yours alone. And forcing everyone to pay goes against one of the principles espoused by the left that HC is a right, Which is also false. Rights are free and not paid for through coersion. HC is goods and services.. SO if HC is a right then housing, Armani suits and BMW’s.

Sign me up.

Shouldn’t a government enact “punitive legislation”?

jcapan.
Mao is more than a dictator, he is responsible for the death of over 50,000,000 Chinese citizens. To quote one of his comments from his little red book in one thing. To state at an 8th grade graduation ceremony that he is one of your favorite philosophers and the one you turn to for ideas is beyond belief. Then to say it was only a joke is ridicules. That you can defend a person like this only goes to show how far left you really are.

Health insurance is yours alone….
.
This is simply false. Uninsured patients are paid for by everybody else, and communicable diseases are a social (as opposed to individual) issue. Our interconnectedness is just an unavoidable fact no matter HOW many Ann Rand novels you’ve read…..

So we fix that by spending an additional $1trillion for something we already pay for?

Makes perfect sense, if you lost your mind

” .. I don’t know that the federal government can force people to have health insurance. ..

The secret lies in devicing a slew (regimen?) of assistance, incentives and deterrence for those who may not comply.

Lets see what you don’t know about your government:

Your government can force you – or rather encourage you with convincing reason – to have an insurance for your car, right? We can start there … and make the penalty unpleasant.

Your government can, somehow, force you to take your sick kid to a doctor, right. Of course you may resist on moral/religious grounds ..

Hey, your government can encourage or even force you to, eh, volunteer to take your body to war (and hope that the enemy will be weak ..)

Uhm. It’s actually amazing that you apparently think everybody else already pay for the uninsured, and that the projected costs of the Republican “plan” – aka the status quo – are far worse than any plans under consideration now. That’s why the CBO can project that these plans will save you money in the long run, with far better coverage, and eventually far better healthcare results. For less money.

Ugh, of course I meant that freeinpa apparently thinks that everybody else DOESN’T pay for the uninsured already.

Horrible comment-system.

Ugh, of course I meant that freeinpa apparently thinks that everybody else DOESN’T pay for the uninsured already.

spob:
” .. Paul, your legal analysis is, um, less than compelling. ..

Where is yours? Is it yet to come, spob?

Laws are a reflection of the values of the society at a momemnt in time. They do change (or rather they are changed by the soceity as it evolves) with the times. It was once quite OK to own a human being/property and treat him/her like a beast of burden. And the apprehended, owned human being – in the land of freedom and liberty – could have his feet cut off for running away from the ignominy of bondage in search of freedom/liberty.
You know the story well.

Now imagine our society/laws accommodating sodomy!
What next – necrophilia? statutory rape? polygamy?
Impiety (and no more “In God We Trust”)?

–
spob:
” ..It’s a little more complicated than that, PD ..” and I, spob the immaculate, have no idea how and why, but I just believe so.
—-
kbanginmotown:
” .. Yeah, c’mon Paul, get yourself educated…”
Talk about groupies .. Behold, spob’s very own ‘Squeaky Fromme’!

Well we know you can’t use a computer but also you have difficulty reading. I commented to Paul D that if we are already all paying for the uninsured what was the wisdom of spending another trillion dollars for the very same thing.

Since you have trouble reading I would suggest you get someone to read the entire CBO analysis and not just get the WH talking points.

” .. what was the wisdom of spending another trillion dollars for the very same thing. ..”

“another”?
What are we spending on that “very same thing” now – nothing?
Have you ever heard of a budget? How about recurrent expenses? How about projections, business plans and pro-forma statements? Gosh! it costs money to wind-up an ongoing concern.

“reform” costs. If “costs” concerned you then you should campaign vigorously for the reform of the inefficient/wasteful ways of certain players in the insurance/health-care industry. But that suggestion prods you to be “constructive” in your ways – a tough challenge indeed for the right wing saboteurs who want POTUS/USA to fail.
[Yet perhaps not as tough as convincing a fellow rightwing Cheney that killing a human, any human - let alone humans - for oil is not, eh, nice. "So?," he would retort ..]

” .. Since you have trouble reading .. “
Now it becomes personal. Your role-models Limbaugh, Beck, Steele and Reagan excel(led) in that arena. But do you expect to win the argument or contribute to the national discourse that way?

cfukara

“Have you ever heard of a budget? How about recurrent expenses? How about projections, business plans and pro-forma statements?”

Nice buzz words, you should have someone explain them to you. The budget et al you speak is in addition to what we already spend. And what great planning, tax and fee increases for 4 years before the service starts. Why? Oh yeah the elections. And just like every other liberal brain storm when its public and everyone figures they will pay higher premiums for less services and still everyone will not be covered, any advocate for this “health care reform” will be sent to the retirement home. It will give liberals 4 years to dream up excuses and ways to blame conservatives for their stupidity.

Liberals tried to ram this through under the cover of darkness, now they are backloading costs to make it look budget neutral, which it will never be. Check out the US Mail, Amtrak, IRS and yes Medicare which are among the most inefficient operations alive. The bill does not have to have death panels, just by virtue of having the government running the entire system will be a death sentence for freedoms, choice and our liberties.

“Now it becomes personal” Are you kidding? Liberals have made it an art to personally smear and destroy anyone with the temerity to disagree. Just review what did happen to Rush. The high minded liberals at CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Post et al made up quotes, smeared him and then so oops my bad. National discourse indeed!

” ..Nice buzz words, ..”
Nice buss word like the word “liberals” that you drop here and there? [Count the number of times in this posting alone.]

—

” .. you should have someone explain them to you. ..”
OK, lets hear you out .. Explain away. We are ready ..

—

” … The budget et al you speak is in addition to what we already spend. ..”
“et al”?
“in addition … already spend”?
Gosh, we wasted our time. We should have known better.

cfukara

“Explain away. We are ready” WE?? Off your meds again

“Gosh, we wasted our time. We should have known better.” Yes we should know better already that any government entitlement program is chock full of waste and will end up multiples of the dishonest estimates that are reported to get it passed.

But then that is the definition of insanity–Keep trying the same thing and expecting different results

spob says: ‘Look at the f’in speech’
.
Ok, lets look. Dunn said:

“The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa — not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is ‘you’re going to make choices; you’re going to challenge; you’re going to say why not; you’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before.”

.
spob, and the other wingnuts smearing Dunn are either willfully ignorant or they are liars. A third possibility is that they’re just too stupid to understand English. Dunn is clearly saying that she chose to Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa as examples to MAKE A POINT about making your own choices in life. She expands on their examples later in her speach (look for yourself — you don’t have to take my word for it — or spob’s or Malkin’s). She was not implying ANYTHING ELSE. It’s clear to any honest observer that Dunn neither said or implied what spob is attributing to her.
.
spob, you’re either too stupid to understand the meaning of Dunn’s speech or you are a smear artist and a liar.