T Nation

Takin' Obamacare to Court

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T1

This is a necessary step. This is what the checks and balances are for. Congress trumped the will of the people. It must be determined whether or not it is a constitutional law…Me thinks not.

Problem is, as already mentioned the Supreme Court scarcely ever throws out an entire bill, unless that bill really has just one thing in it, but rather at most strikes down specific provisions within it.

So let’s say that the AG’s of the various states are successful.

Also let’s say that Rockscar was correct in posting the below:


Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals’ finances & a ‘National ID Health card’ will be issued! (Papers please!)

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer. (Time for more cash and carry)

Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the ‘Exchange.’
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans – The Govt will ration your health care!
Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)
Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!)

Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)

Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees ANDtheir families. (Employees shouldn’t get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)

Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn’t provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.) (Like always)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin… will have access to ALL Americans’ finances and personal records. (I guess so they can ‘deduct’ their fees)

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” (Yes, it really says that!) ( a ‘fee’ instead)

Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn’t matter what specialty you have trained yourself in – you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that’s not Socialism!)

Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor’s time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)

Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for “private” HC industries.
Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e…re-admissions).

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission – the Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)
Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want – rationing.)

Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of ‘special needs people!’ Unbelievable!
Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a “Tele-Health Advisory Committee.” (Can you say HC by phone?)
Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates “Advance-Care Planning Consult.” (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)
Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it’s mandatory!)

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an “approved” list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death. (Also called ‘assisted suicide.’)(Sounds like Soylent Green to me.)

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on “end-of-life.” (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An “advanced-care planning consultant” will be used frequently as a patient’s health deteriorates.
Page 429 Lines 10-12: An “advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans… (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order… (I wouldn’t want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again – no choice!)
Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)
Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

How many of these would still remain?

Practically all.

The bill is over 2000 pages and therefore must have very many things in it. The Supreme Court will not rule on each of them.

As for the argument that the government cannot mandate individuals to purchase health insurance, I have to agree with the Obama Administration on this one: Easy win for the government.

The Supreme Court has I think NEVER thrown out a tax.

The government’s argument will be that the bill provides choice between purchasing a policy or paying a tax.

I can readily see the Supreme Court finding that to be okay, in terms of how they see things.

As for the Federal Government being involved in the matter at all, first, the fact that a given power is not given to the Federal Government by the Constitution and therefore (one would think) is reserved to the states is something the Supreme Court clearly has not believed for a long time and has not at any recent time ever made any such ruling.

So regarding the fact that there’s nothing in the Constitution giving the Federal Government this power, as personal opinion I’m dead positive the Supreme Court will be fine with this.

And they may very well bring in the interstate commerce clause: any serious medical treatment one may receive, or even just getting a Band-Aid put on, will generally involve interstate commerce these days.

Really.

Since when have the Supreme Court justices really reigned in the powers of the Federal Government? If they were individuals who were going to do that, they wouldn’t have been put on the bench by a President and with approval of the Senate, again as personal opinion.

Bill’s right, when a court looks at legislation, it is bound to be deferential and only strike the bad parts, unless the entire thing is so bad it can’t strike the bad parts without leaving the good parts meaningless.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Problem is, as already mentioned the Supreme Court scarcely ever throws out an entire bill, unless that bill really has just one thing in it, but rather at most strikes down specific provisions within it.

So let’s say that the AG’s of the various states are successful.

Also let’s say that Rockscar was correct in posting the below:


Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals’ finances & a ‘National ID Health card’ will be issued! (Papers please!)

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer. (Time for more cash and carry)

Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the ‘Exchange.’
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans – The Govt will ration your health care!
Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)
Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!)

Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)

Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees ANDtheir families. (Employees shouldn’t get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)

Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn’t provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.) (Like always)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin… will have access to ALL Americans’ finances and personal records. (I guess so they can ‘deduct’ their fees)

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” (Yes, it really says that!) ( a ‘fee’ instead)

Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn’t matter what specialty you have trained yourself in – you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that’s not Socialism!)

Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor’s time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)

Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for “private” HC industries.
Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e…re-admissions).

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission – the Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)
Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want – rationing.)

Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of ‘special needs people!’ Unbelievable!
Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a “Tele-Health Advisory Committee.” (Can you say HC by phone?)
Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates “Advance-Care Planning Consult.” (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)
Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it’s mandatory!)

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an “approved” list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death. (Also called ‘assisted suicide.’)(Sounds like Soylent Green to me.)

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on “end-of-life.” (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An “advanced-care planning consultant” will be used frequently as a patient’s health deteriorates.
Page 429 Lines 10-12: An “advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans… (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order… (I wouldn’t want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again – no choice!)
Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)
Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

How many of these would still remain?

Practically all.

The bill is over 2000 pages and therefore must have very many things in it. The Supreme Court will not rule on each of them.

As for the argument that the government cannot mandate individuals to purchase health insurance, I have to agree with the Obama Administration on this one: Easy win for the government.

The Supreme Court has I think NEVER thrown out a tax.

The government’s argument will be that the bill provides choice between purchasing a policy or paying a tax.

I can readily see the Supreme Court finding that to be okay, in terms of how they see things.

As for the Federal Government being involved in the matter at all, first, the fact that a given power is not given to the Federal Government by the Constitution and therefore (one would think) is reserved to the states is something the Supreme Court clearly has not believed for a long time and has not at any recent time ever made any such ruling.

So regarding the fact that there’s nothing in the Constitution giving the Federal Government this power, as personal opinion I’m dead positive the Supreme Court will be fine with this.

And they may very well bring in the interstate commerce clause: any serious medical treatment one may receive, or even just getting a Band-Aid put on, will generally involve interstate commerce these days.

Really.

Since when have the Supreme Court justices really reigned in the powers of the Federal Government? If they were individuals who were going to do that, they wouldn’t have been put on the bench by a President and with approval of the Senate, again as personal opinion.[/quote]

It depends on what the states cases are based on as to what parts of the bill the states file suit on. There are 10 states so far, more are likely coming.

The other thing is since the bill was voted in as a single law any change in the language would force a re-vote on the whole bill.

Don’t forget, there is a whole Senate reconciliation process fixing to take place once the signing takes place.

This ain’t over.

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
Bill’s right, when a court looks at legislation, it is bound to be deferential and only strike the bad parts, unless the entire thing is so bad it can’t strike the bad parts without leaving the good parts meaningless.[/quote]

They voted on it as a single law, if any part of it changes, it’s got to get re-voted on. The mandates are clearly unconstitutional, you don’t need to be a scholar to figure that out.

AND, obama has made an enemy out of the court. It may not hurt him, but it ain’t gonna help.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[/quote]

Bill, your point is well taken. However, you are making assumptions based on precedent. I submit, this situation is MUCH different.

An obvious overreach has occurred.

The next question becomes: If the Court doesn’t rein in the out of control legislature, what is the point of having independent branches of Government?

It’s their most basic role.

They’ll play it.

JeffR

I don’t see the supreme court allowing most of what is in this bill to stand.


Meet your new masters. This is going nowhere and there will be plenty more to come regardless of November’s elections, court challenges or current public opinion. They are buying the latest expansion of their voting base right now as I watch a blatant enemy of the United States who is now our president spew his marxist poison over my television.

This is the intoxicating lure of communism. They know as soon as they get millions more sucking their government teet in the form of dependence for their very life, the election of benevolent federal providers is guaranteed until in our castrated weakened state we finally fall into the global pool of mediocrity.

Thoughts:

  1. A Rasmussen poll shows broad support for challenging it. Win or lose, the process of challenging it helps the political battle to repeal it - the administration will be forced to make the case to an already skeptical public that, yes, the federal government has the authority to compel private citizens to buy government approved private products and, as such, has could pass a law doing this in any aspect of interstate commerce (i.e., anything, not just insurance).

This will be great political theater - and Social Democrats, who scared up all kinds of good stories about Bush/Hitler, the Patriot Act, etc. and the scary police state - will now have to defend a theory of government that permits the federal government to force private citizens to spend their money in certain directions or be punished.

Can Congress force you to buy a GM car? Can they force you to buy no-sugar foods? Can they force you to buy hyrbids? The principle in play raises all these questions, and even if SCOTUS decides it is a political question, this will be part of a hot debate that the Social Democrats are unlikely to win.

  1. If we get lucky and SCOTUS strikes down even the one part that compels citizens to buy insurance, Congress we be re-obligated to rescore it through the CBO without the monies paid in by the compelled individuals. That, too, bodes well for the political battle of repealing it.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
Bill’s right, when a court looks at legislation, it is bound to be deferential and only strike the bad parts, unless the entire thing is so bad it can’t strike the bad parts without leaving the good parts meaningless.[/quote]

They voted on it as a single law, if any part of it changes, it’s got to get re-voted on. The mandates are clearly unconstitutional, you don’t need to be a scholar to figure that out.

AND, obama has made an enemy out of the court. It may not hurt him, but it ain’t gonna help.[/quote]

Yep. Even his appointee looked very uncomfortable when obama was acting poorly.

JeffR

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Thoughts:

  1. A Rasmussen poll shows broad support for challenging it. Win or lose, the process of challenging it helps the political battle to repeal it - the administration will be forced to make the case to an already skeptical public that, yes, the federal government has the authority to compel private citizens to buy government approved private products and, as such, has could pass a law doing this in any aspect of interstate commerce (i.e., anything, not just insurance).

This will be great political theater - and Social Democrats, who scared up all kinds of good stories about Bush/Hitler, the Patriot Act, etc. and the scary police state - will now have to defend a theory of government that permits the federal government to force private citizens to spend their money in certain directions or be punished.

Can Congress force you to buy a GM car? Can they force you to buy no-sugar foods? Can they force you to buy hyrbids? The principle in play raises all these questions, and even if SCOTUS decides it is a political question, this will be part of a hot debate that the Social Democrats are unlikely to win.

  1. If we get lucky and SCOTUS strikes down even the one part that compels citizens to buy insurance, Congress we be re-obligated to rescore it through the CBO without the monies paid in by the compelled individuals. That, too, bodes well for the political battle of repealing it.

[/quote]

Agreed:

The people who will challenge this also are aware that if the mandatory health coverage is ruled unconstitutional, it undercuts the entire premise.

Gone in one ruling would be the dems talking point of 32 million insured.

Then you’ll see that that number has been jobbed for poltical purposes. Sound familiar?

I was much more comfortable with the result of a deem and pass strategy. I was 95% sure that would be repealed quickly.

I’m reasonably comfortable that at least some of this overreach will be repealed. However, I don’t see a Federal Judge ruling for a stay of the provisions. Therefore, tax money shall be collected and wasted. Further, the apparatus (16,000 new IRS agents) will be ramped up.

I do expect other provisions to be challenged with or without a ruling on the mandatory health insurance.

JeffR

[quote]pat wrote:

They voted on it as a single law, if any part of it changes, it’s got to get re-voted on. [/quote]

This is my understanding too. Anyone know differently?

Pat, you’re not right in believing that a bill has to be re-voted on when a court rules unconstitutional some part of it.

The remaining parts of the bill remain law.

I was doing some research because I was going through HR 3590 and had some trouble finding some of the stuff that Rockscar posted, and then I stumbled upon this site. What do you guys think?

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/health-plan.htm

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Pat, you’re not right in believing that a bill has to be re-voted on when a court rules unconstitutional some part of it.

The remaining parts of the bill remain law.[/quote]

You may be right, I cannot find anything on the topic. I thought that if a low gets changed it’s not longer valid as that is what was not voted on…Like the Marijuana Stamp Act.

[quote]pat wrote:

You may be right, I cannot find anything on the topic. I thought that if a low gets changed it’s not longer valid as that is what was not voted on…Like the Marijuana Stamp Act.[/quote]

Depends on its viability after the section is removed. In theory, the removal of the mandate - which helps fund the whole endeavor - might make the bill inoperable, but no one knows (probably not even the Democrats, and certainly not the President).

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve heard some opinions this may be fast tracked to the USSC and there could even be a summertime ruling.[/quote]

There is both good and bad to this being fast tracked, but the USSC usually does not want to make a political ruling in an election year. This is a very heated debate and with emotions running high we will see if the courts really are blind. In the past the courts have been thought as liberal, but if they rule to repeal this law they will be considered conservative. I think they will be in the middle where they should be.

[quote]PB Andy wrote:
I was doing some research because I was going through HR 3590 and had some trouble finding some of the stuff that Rockscar posted, and then I stumbled upon this site. What do you guys think?

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/health-plan.htm[/quote]

The bill that has now become law is not the one discussed there. This site discusses HR-3200.

The bill I got from the federal website is hr4872 (2310 pages) and does have the stuff Rockscar cited, but the language is such that deciphering exactly what much of it is actually binding us to is iffy at best.

[quote]John Conyers said:
“what good does it do to read the bill if ya don’t have 2 days and 2 lawyers to tell ya what it means after ya read the bill?”[/quote]
Indeed. You can surmise what it should mean if it were composed in anything like Earthly English, but that is no guarantee.

I don’t see any challenges to this going anywhere though if ever in my life I would prefer to be dead wrong it’s here.

All they need is enough time to drag enough people in and any attempt to put a finger on it will be successfully portrayed as tantamount to throwing fellow citizens off the lifeboat.

The fact that a parade of states are challenging it may carry some weight, I don’t know.