PDA

View Full Version : Health Care Question



KC
12-03-2012, 11:56 AM
Republicans and people on the right often talk about the complex web of state regulations hindering health care costs and insurance costs. I agree that state regulations are part of the problem, but don't see how the Federal government can legally intervene in this way. Can anyone explain what exactly they're proposing to fix this?

Peter1469
12-03-2012, 01:00 PM
Art V, US Const. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

KC
12-03-2012, 01:13 PM
Art V, US Const. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

So you think we need a Constitutional amendment to take away state sovereignty on health care?

Chris
12-03-2012, 01:20 PM
Could you give specific examples of "state regulations hindering health care costs and insurance costs" just to be sure I understand what you mean.

KC
12-03-2012, 01:29 PM
Could you give specific examples of "state regulations hindering health care costs and insurance costs" just to be sure I understand what you mean.

Currently state licensing mechanisms keep insurance companies and heath care providers from competing across state lines. I have heard federal politicians talk about fixing this issue, but to me it seems like an entirely state based decision.

Peter1469
12-03-2012, 01:45 PM
So you think we need a Constitutional amendment to take away state sovereignty on health care?

The enumerated powers of Congress don't include micromanaging healthcare.

Chris
12-03-2012, 01:51 PM
The enumerated powers of Congress don't include micromanaging healthcare.

Well, while I agree they're not so empowered, I think that door's been blown off the hinges of the commerce clause and the statists have already rushed in manage individuals so there's little to stop them managing states.


I have to admit that "state licensing mechanisms keep insurance companies and heath care providers from competing across state lines" is a tough one from a federalist perspective.

KC
12-03-2012, 01:54 PM
The enumerated powers of Congress don't include micromanaging healthcare.

Right, so when I hear conservative federal officeholders talk about allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, should I dismiss them?

Peter1469
12-03-2012, 02:04 PM
Well, while I agree they're not so empowered, I think that door's been blown off the hinges of the commerce clause and the statists have already rushed in manage individuals so there's little to stop them managing states.


I have to admit that "state licensing mechanisms keep insurance companies and heath care providers from competing across state lines" is a tough one from a federalist perspective.

Roberts and the Lib justices closed that Commerce Clause door. Although I expect the lib justices didn't realize the gravity of their holding.

Peter1469
12-03-2012, 02:05 PM
Right, so when I hear conservative federal officeholders talk about allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, should I dismiss them?

No. If you agree you should support an amendment to the Constitution. It may make sense in this case.

Chris
12-03-2012, 02:10 PM
Roberts and the Lib justices closed that Commerce Clause door. Although I expect the lib justices didn't realize the gravity of their holding.

Seems to me they opened it up to taxation, it'd already been opened to regulation.

Anyway, enforcing the commerce clause as I suspect you and I both agree it should be, does present a problem with removing state regs on insurance.

Peter1469
12-03-2012, 02:21 PM
Seems to me they opened it up to taxation, it'd already been opened to regulation.

Anyway, enforcing the commerce clause as I suspect you and I both agree it should be, does present a problem with removing state regs on insurance.


Right. SCOTUS said that the Commence Clause does not give the federal government the power to tell Americans to enter into contracts for insurance with private companies. But it said that the federal government had the power to tax those who don't. While I totally disagree with this- because the taxing power cannot be divorced from the enumerated powers..., I understand what Roberts did. I posted my opinion on that disappointing day when the ruling came out.

Roberts is playing 3D chess and appears to not care about Obamacare and has put a stake into the heart of the movement usurping the Commerce Clause. This ruling was stunning! It overturned all Commerce Clause law post-1937. With the one caveat- the taxing power. But, consider- if Congress has to admit that this sort of law that requires your money, it is really a tax, will they pass in the future? Congress bent over backwards to claim that the mandate was not a tax. Because they knew it wouldn't pass if it were....

To be fair, this was politics and goes beyond what SCOTUS should do. They should just have struck it down as unconstitutional. But they didn't have the votes. Roberts may have saved the Republic with this ridiculous ruling.