#HCR - why those conservatives blathering on about unconstitutionality are wrong
Never got to this when I wrote my first, ranty post, but here are my thoughts on the various arguments that healthcare reform (as signed into law today, OMG!) is unconstitutional. ( conservatives do not understand the constitution )
Comments 13
Reply
Reply
1. The constitutional argument (from the right side of the political spectrum) is that the federal government can't do any of this, because these things are not explicitly listed in the Constitution. Whether the states can is a separate question.
2. Being a licensed driver and registering a car are both privileges, not rights, and the state is allowed to place conditions on issuing the licenses and registrations. And there are alternatives (bus, train, bike, etc.), whereas healthcare reform requires EVERYONE (with limited exceptions for religious beliefs, etc.) to either have health insurance or pay a tax. There's no alternative, and it's not tied to some privilege requiring some sort of state approval.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
It's been interesting seeing the reactions of the attendings versus the residents and fellows. I don't know if it's an age thing or what, but the residents/fellows/students are all pretty chuffed. Some of the attendings are dubious. It's an interesting reaction, considering that I work in an environment where something like 75% or more of the adult patients are UNINSURED and covered under charity care (read: we get what Medicaid gives us). The only reason MY patient population is >90% insured is because they are children, and New York's provision for minors being able to acquire state-sponsored insurance is very generous (I forget what it is, but you can make quite a decent amount of money and still be able to cover your kids under the state programs).
So you'd think they'd know this can work.
I'm also amused that they think a guy who used to teach constitutional law would pass something that was egregiously unconstitutional on such a basic level.
Reply
LOL. I could write VOLUMES on constitutional issues, because I find it totally fascinating. :)
I don't know if it's an age thing or what, but the residents/fellows/students are all pretty chuffed. Some of the attendings are dubious. It's an interesting reaction, considering that I work in an environment where something like 75% or more of the adult patients are UNINSURED and covered under charity care (read: we get what Medicaid gives us).
Huh, that is interesting. I'm curious to see the opinions broken down by geographic once we get a few weeks out from the ANGERBALL nonsense of the last couple months.
I'm also amused that they think a guy who used to teach constitutional law would pass something that was egregiously unconstitutional on such a basic level.Right, EXACTLY. There's also a lot of interesting stuff out there from, like, LAST YEAR with the GOP proposing and/or supporting plans with an individual mandate. I guess the last gasp of the losers is OMG THAT IS WRONG ( ... )
Reply
Well, please continue, because so do I.
Nothing the GOP does that is illogical can surprise me anymore. Or so I keep telling myself. Except that then it always does, somehow. Basically, the tenet of their philosophy has always appeared to be "If I wanna do it, it's fine and you better shut up about it! But if you wanna do it, it's ILLEGAL/UNCONSTITUTIONAL/IMMORAL/UNAMURRICAN!!!"
Have I got that right?
Anyway, Senate bill passes! We win again! Wheeeee!
Reply
Reply
It's funny, one of the reasons (many) I am and have always been so strongly in favor of a national single-payer system is the anticipation of the compelled purchase argument.
As I understand it, if 100% of payment is collected through the tax system and disbursed by the government, either directly to providers or to private insurance contractors/managers/trusts/whatever, that line of objection simply ceases to exist, yes?
Reply
one of the reasons (many) I am and have always been so strongly in favor of a national single-payer system is the anticipation of the compelled purchase argument.
Oh, I agree, and I definitely favor single-payer, on its merits, and on the grounds that it's clearly Constitutional for the government to tax citizens "for the general Welfare." In fact, while arguing (a lot) with the office conservative today, I stumbled across some interesting and relevant quotes from the New Deal-era challenges to expanded government power (based on Commerce/Tax & Spend clause):
The constitutional issue about the taxing power had deep roots running all the way back to the founders and to a dispute between Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Although both Hamilton and Madison were Federalists who believed in a strong federal government, they disagreed over the interpretation of the Constitution's permission for the government to levy taxes and spend money to "provide for the general welfare." Hamilton thought this meant that government ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment