“I didn’t defend the federal mandate. I defended the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a Federal Mandate.”

(*SIGH*)

You couldn’t leave well enough alone, Ireign.

(*SHRUG*)

OK, It seems as if I must further flesh out my post #99:

Ireign. You’re obviously referring to “constitutionality” based upon precedent – NOT the Constitution itself… NOT the intent of the Founding Fathers, the authors and signers of the Constitution.

Or am I wrong…??? Do you HONESTLY believe that the Founding Fathers or ANY Supreme Court existing within the lifespan on ANY of the Founding Fathers would have viewed the proposition that the federal government has the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to FORCE individual American citizens to buy health insurance with favor…???

(*SHRUG*)

Hey… understand… I’m all for “forced” insurance purchases also! It’s a foundation of my own plan!

(*PAUSE*)

Still… just because *I* favor something doesn’t make that something automatically constitutional.

Do you get what I’m saying – where I’m coming from?

Anyway…

BILL

“Bill, I can only wish I was being paid by insurance companies. I will gladly sell my services to the highest bidder:-)”

(*GRIN*)

You know… speaking of getting paid… Frum should pay US – me, you, Balc, and the other regulars – for making this site as successful as it is.

(*WINK*)

David… if you send a check to: Bill – 10926-3030 I’ll get it!

BILL

And in this case, corporate lawyers who were in political level appointees during the Reagan and Bush I Administration, and the Federalist Society.

You have avoided the implicit question from Bill as to why you defend the idea of a Federal Mandate.

“OK, there’s the other possibility, that he is being funded by big insurance to support a mandate, like a number of politicians, think tanks, and conservative media outlets are, but I seriously doubt that.”

(*ROFLMAO*)

(*FRIENDLY PUNCH TO IREIGN’S SHOULDER*)

Com’on, Ireign… (*STILL LAUGHING*)… ya gotta laugh with me at that one! After all, we’re both “jolly” conservatives who appreciate a good laugh – even when it’s at our own expense!

(*WINK*)

“It certainly worries the hell out of me when suddenly there would be a mandate for the Federal Government to direct me to put my money not into the pockets of Government (which then distributes it to private corporations to get stuff done) but directly into the hands of Corporations … just as a price to be paid to live in America. Because I see a whole lot of nasties flowing from that precedent, once established.”

(*SOBER NOD*)

BILL

Because there is a very strong sentiment for universal health care in America – and the proposal of a mandate is a way to short circuit the OTHER way of ensuring it.

OK, there’s the other possibility, that he is being funded by big insurance to support a mandate, like a number of politicians, think tanks, and conservative media outlets are, but I seriously doubt that.

Strange to some though it may seem, I am very concerned about decisions that create new precedents for government intrusion into people’s lives. They have to be weighed very carefully against the supposed benefits, and unintended consequences have to be considered. This was enough to make me very leery of the surveillance powers granted government in the Patriot Act … it is not enough to scare me off publicly funded healthcare.

It certainly worries the hell out of me when suddenly there would be a mandate for the Federal Government to direct me to put my money not into the pockets of Government (which then distributes it to private corporations to get stuff done) but directly into the hands of Corporations … just as a price to be paid to live in America. Because I see a whole lot of nasties flowing from that precedent, once established.

Beyond this…

* Ireign – this is directed to you!

Let’s look at the BIG picture – from a conservative constitutionalist’s point of view:

Precedence be damned!

Jeez, Ireign (and my fellow constitutionalists), who here doesn’t believe the Supreme Court (plural – decisions in a time-line continuum) hasn’t stretched the original meaning and intent of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause being recognition…???

Com’on… originalists FIXATE upon the Commerce Clause when they cite example after example of various Supreme Courts running off the rails.

(*SNORT*)

I mean… hey… I APPRECIATE Balc’s fact-based, citation based defense of the concept I first touched upon in my post #84… but to see Ireign take the “short” view on this question as it relates to trying to win a back and forth debate on a single blog thread…

(*SIGH*)

Ireign. Com’on! (*GRIN*) Can’t you see that from a certain perspective – the “long” view, the “big” picture – that you’re actually “defending” the LIBERAL view of judicial activism while Balc is… er… wearing a white hat on this one…!?

(*WINK*)

BILL

Constitutional Implications of an “Individual Mandate” in Health Care Reform
By Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis G. Smith**
The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies

While most health care insurers and health care providers may engage in interstate commerce and may be regulated accordingly under the Commerce Clause, it is a different matter to find a basis for imposing Commerce Clause related regulation on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction. The decision not to engage in affirmative conduct is arguably distinguishable from cases in which Commerce Clause regulatory authority was recognized over intra-state activity: growing wheat (Wickard v. Filmore)12 or, more recently, growing marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich).13 Reliance on the Commerce Clause to justify the constitutionality of an individual mandate might be susceptible to an “as applied” challenge from individuals who (1) never access the health care system or (2) are able to pay for their health care without using insurance, because the government could not claim an impact on interstate commerce of providers and insurers as a result of uncompensated care.

An individual mandate also presents issues under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s Taking Clause. Given the uncertainty with how an individual mandate would comport with religious beliefs regarding health care choices, the Senate Finance Committee policy outline suggests creating an exception to the health insurance mandate for “religious reasons.” It still leaves open, however, the question of whether the compelled purchase of health insurance constitutes the “taking” of private property under the Fifth Amendment. Given the novel nature of the individual health insurance mandate, a Fifth Amendment challenge can be expected. Requiring a citizen to devote a percent of his or her income for a purpose for which he or she otherwise might not choose based on individual circumstances could be considered an arbitrary and capricious “taking” no matter how many hardship exemptions the federal government might dispense.

**Peter Urbanowicz is an attorney and health care management consultant in Washington, D.C. He
previously served as Deputy General Counsel of the United States Department of Health and Human
Services. Dennis G. Smith is a Senior Research Fellow in Health Care Reform at the Heritage
Foundation. He previously served as Director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations of the
United States Department of Health and Human Services and served as Acting Administrator for the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Sure. I just cited a couple very prominent ones who in fact did so. And you blew them off.

According to the CFG:

Under Bennett’s bill, Congress would set a standard benefits package for all health insurance plans nationwide, and citizens could only buy plans approved by the government. Essentially, every individual would be forced to buy a plan through a government-run “exchange” with premiums automatically taken from their paychecks and sent to the IRS. If they don’t buy the coverage, they would be fined.

S. 391 would also require employers to pay into this new system. Currently, employers voluntarily decide to provide and contribute to their employees’ health insurance. The bill would impose a new job-killing tax as high as 25% of the cost of a basic health benefit.

The Director of the Congressional Budget Office and the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation wrote that under Bennett’s bill, “Most health insurance premiums that are now paid privately would flow through the Federal budget, and total Federal outlays for health insurance premiums would be on the order of $1.3 trillion to $1.4 trillion in 2014.”

Over time, this will lead to more expensive insurance and fewer choices as special interests lobby to have their procedures and services included in federally mandated health benefits.

Many of the features in the Bennett bill were patterned after a health care law adopted in Massachusetts a few years ago, where costs have increased over 60% faster than if the plan had not passed.

Worse, despite “all that additional spending, many Massachusetts residents are finding it harder to see a doctor. One survey of wait times to see a specialist, such as a cardiologist or orthopedic surgeon, reads like a dispatch from Canada. In 2004, specialist wait times in Boston were already among the highest in the nation. Over the next five years, wait times fell in most U.S. cities to an average 21 days, but in Boston they rose to an average of 50 days, even though Massachusetts has more doctors per resident than any other state.”

As a possible delegate to the Utah Republican Convention next year, you are in a unique position to influence the national debate on whether Congress should approve government-run health care.

Sen. Bennett’s bill is the wrong medicine for our health care system. Instead of curing problems, it would create massive new ones. If you disagree with his approach, we urge you to call on Sen. Bennett to drop his proposed government-run health care plan and support alternatives that give more control to patients and doctors. We also urge you to call on all the candidates for U.S. Senate from Utah to strongly oppose the Bennett bill.

* Hey… “buy” it or not; but this is from the “horse’s mouth.” (*SHRUG*)

BILL