Federal judge tosses out sweeping health care reform act

[nun]

It shows that party unity and public policy as a full contact team sport is more important that seeking consensus and common ground (where it can be found if they all look for it) and getting the right things done, which is a shame.

I agree.

 

[ziggy29]

Don ya just love the smell of repeatedly beaten horseflesh in the morning...

Hopefully served with eggs, toast and orange juice.

 

[nun]

I'd also add only that there's a Constitutional difference between state law and federal law. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the courts should throw out the Massachusetts mandate on Constitutional grounds.

Obviously. The Federal legislation is fashioned after existing state laws. That's a good thing about the American system, you have 50 states to test out ideas and laws. Of course that arrangement also makes it difficult to come up with a consensus across 50 states.

 

[nun]

You seem intent on bringing in the pig to close down a thread on a discussion that you don't want aired. Hasn't ziggy sent enough warnings to you?

-ERD50

Sorry if my opinions are an issue, I thought I was on topic....well maybe the Foxnews jab was a bit cheeky.

 

[ziggy29]

Obviously. The Federal legislation is fashioned after existing state laws. That's a good thing about the American system, you have 50 states to test out ideas and laws. Of course that arrangement also makes it difficult to come up with a consensus across 50 states.

IMO, that's the beauty of federalism. We have 50 states in various regions with different cultural and economic values. Not only can this allow different groups of people to implement laws that suit their values, but we also have 50 independent "laboratories of democracy" so that if a federal solution is warranted, we can look to the states to see what's working and what isn't (in other words, states are free to choose to be guinea pigs).

Why force the northeastern states to have the same laws as the southern states when what they want is obviously different in so many cases?

Plus it forces state government to be more accountable to its people. Since people and businesses can freely move from state to state, state governments have to be accountable to its constituents if they want these people and their tax revenues to stay in-state. There's something to be said for that, IMO. People can't just easily leave the country if they don't approve of federal law.

 

[donheff]

So this is interesting:

Durbin, Dems fight back at court hearing striking down Obama health reform law. Hearing Wednesday - Lynn Sweet


I thought it was the Supreme Court who determined Constitutionality? Now the lawmakers want to weigh in on that? What happened to separation of powers?

-ERD50

They ought to be studying what may have gone wrong here. Both on the constitutionality of the mandate and on whether they should have included a sever-ability clause. On groundbreaking social programs affecting the entire country it is a disaster to get the underlying constitutionality wrong. Keep in mind, this reversal does not invalidate the concept of universal health care, just the specific approach taken. Congress should have foreseen the problems and addressed them.

 

[Nords]

Don't ya just love the smell of repeatedly beaten horseflesh in the morning...

Yeah, but I can't help snickering every time I see the acronym "SCOTUS"...

 

[nun]

Why force the northeastern states to have the same laws as the southern states when what they want is obviously different in so many cases?

I'm tempted to mention the Civil War....oops did it., and that's obviously taking things to extremes. But having grown up with a Parliamentary system of government I more often than not find myself frustrated with the American system. It definitely has it's positives, but coming to a consensus about solving a problem is not one of it's strengths, or maybe that is a strength.....

 

[nun]

They ought to be studying what may have gone wrong here. Both on the constitutionality of the mandate and on whether they should have included a sever-ability clause. On groundbreaking social programs affecting the entire country it is a disaster to get the underlying constitutionality wrong. Keep in mind, this reversal does not invalidate the concept of universal health care, just the specific approach taken. Congress should have foreseen the problems and addressed them.

The constitutionality one way or the other isn't decided yet. But I agree that I would have preferred that the system was funded through taxation thus avoiding the court battles.

 

[ERD50]

Sorry if my opinions are an issue, I thought I was on topic....well maybe the Foxnews jab was a bit cheeky.

And wrong. 236 of 'em. FWIW, which is nothing in particular.

-ERD50

 

[ziggy29]

I'm tempted to mention the Civil War....oops did it., and that's obviously taking things to extremes.

Yes, but those differences were "settled" by Constitutional Amendment rather than looking the other way when it's violated.

If nothing else, though they'd have to find the votes for it, they'd have to chuck the "individual mandate" as passed and instead seek universal single-payer funded through tax revenues rather than making individuals purchase a private product. Medicare is a precedent for this passing Constitutional muster.

 

[Westernskies]

 

[ERD50]

... and instead seek universal single-payer funded through tax revenues rather than making individuals purchase a private product. Medicare is a precedent for this passing Constitutional muster.

Isn't a voucher system (like the Swiss use) another alternative? It isn't unconstitutional (AFAIK) to tax people and give them something in return.

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

I'm tempted to mention the Civil War....oops did it., and that's obviously taking things to extremes. But having grown up with a Parliamentary system of government I more often than not find myself frustrated with the American system. It definitely has it's positives, but coming to a consensus about solving a problem is not one of it's strengths, or maybe that is a strength.....

IMO, that is the strenght of the American system... because the system usually does come to a consensus on solving a problem... that is usually why when one side or the other tries to force something through it has a lot of problems... (this is not aimed at the current bill, but in general)...

Now, the time frame for getting that decision is usually long and drawn out... but again, that is good in that nothing gets done quickly unless everybody is on board... (but even then they make big mistakes... look at some of the 9/11 legislation)...

 

[ziggy29]

Isn't a voucher system (like the Swiss use) another alternative? It isn't unconstitutional (AFAIK) to tax people and give them something in return.

Perhaps, but the main point is that it has to funded through taxation and not through some mandate that each citizen purchase some private product with their own after-tax dollars.

 

[nun]

If nothing else, though they'd have to find the votes for it, they'd have to chuck the "individual mandate" as passed and instead seek universal single-payer funded through tax revenues rather than making individuals purchase a private product. Medicare is a precedent for this passing Constitutional muster.

Philosophically I'm against the individual mandate as I think health insurance should be universal and funded through taxation. But I support the federal law as a compromise to get the most people insured under the prevailing system. The constitutionality of the law won't be decided for a while, there are obviously competing interpretations about the application of the commerce clause. Right now the constitutionality is undecided, we can't agree, lower court judges can't agree and I imagine the Supreme Court will be split too.

As a socialist libetarian I'm very weary of Government interference, but I generally default to accepting taxation for social policies, but never accept Government interference in free speech issues. JC had it right when he said "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's"

Once again I'm glad of living in MA, and for the progressive policies of Mitt

 

[M Paquette]

This is why I can never have anything nice.

 

[samclem]

IMO, that's the beauty of federalism. We have 50 states in various regions with different cultural and economic values.

I agree with all you wrote, but we do have to face two problems with individual state solutions:
-- The small sizes of many states will lead to serious inefficiencies compared to a single US-wide approach.
-- The adverse selection/race-to-the-bottom problem. If MA gets out in front and institutes "free" medical care and bread-and-circuses for all residents, lots of folks will move there who need expensive medical care. This happens to some degree with state aid to the poor, but it's not a big problem because poor people often don't have the resources to pull up stakes and move to the high-benefit states. A person who needs a kidney transplant, cancer treatment, etc would have a very big motivation to move to where the free care was. I suppose a residency duration requirement (as we do for state universities) or some type of medical underwriting might be put into place, but that adds complexity.

What I like BEST about the state-run solution is that it's entirely within the traditional scope of the US constitution. And, if the states want to get together to form larger, more efficient pools with common laws and mutual recognition of eligibility for care, that's just fine--everyone benefits. If it works, residents of states that hadn't signed on would push their states to join the group. Like the the Powerball consortium!

Originally Posted by donheff
They ought to be studying what may have gone wrong here. Both on the constitutionality of the mandate and on whether they should have included a sever-ability clause. On groundbreaking social programs affecting the entire country it is a disaster to get the underlying constitutionality wrong. Keep in mind, this reversal does not invalidate the concept of universal health care, just the specific approach taken. Congress should have foreseen the problems and addressed them.

Yes. The constitutionality issue hasn't been settled yet, but is certainly not the laughing matter implied by the Speaker. The fact that this wasn't even seriously considered before the law was finalized and voted on is now a problem for everyone.
This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue--both sides seem content, in their turn, to pass legislation and let the Supreme Court decide if it is constitutional. These legislators have sworn to uphold the Constitution, that should mean, on the most fundamental level, not violating it. The courts should be the "second check", not the only one.

 

[obgyn65]

+1. Exactly. I won't even post anything else than this message under this thread. Good night

My advice: Put this thread on ignore and save your blood pressure.

 

[SarahW]

This is why I can never have anything nice.

 

[ls99]

The real reason the Judge tossed obamacare, you see he was having breakfest and then this doc stepped up, all the judge heard was this snap of surgical glove: