Don't pack the court, but is healthcare unconstitutional?

I don't think that Democrats should pack the court if Biden wins and a blue wave takes over Congress. But, I must admit that democratic policy will be challenged if not outright block the advancement of policies.

This of course includes any movement by the government in the area of healthcare. Sometimes I think right-wing politics makes healthcare unconstitutional.

Don't pack the court, but is healthcare unconstitutional?

 

I don't follow you

 

I just read an article on Drudge about an American who relocated his family to FRANCE and is now enjoying the worlds best health care at minimal cost as well as very low cost higher education. He and his family members are very glad they made the move although they do say they miss NY City and he misses Oregon where he grew up.

 

20%

The standard VAT rate in France is 20%. Principal reduced rates are 5.5% and 10%. Other specific reduced rated exist such as 2.1% for goods from chemists or some newspapers or 13% for sales in Corsica Island.

TMF Group › vat › country-profile
VAT in France | TMF Group

 

I consider a red waver to be far more probable under these circumstances but.......
I've been wrong many times before. A segment of the population believe that
the poor should have economic pressure put on them so that they tend to abort their children. They make sure
that cures for cancer are hidden because they actually favour a world with only five hundred million people.

 

i don’t blame him i would want to live anywhere other then. NYC

 

In other words, America has the worst health care system in the world because it can't change it. To change it is unconstitutional.

Republicans don't want healthcare to change. Republicans don't want to fix that problem. They will use any form necessary to block a change in the healthcare system.

Republicans with a majority in the court can choose not to allow any healthcare reform because they can decide to rule unconstitutional to thwart any effort by Democratic lawmakers to make a healthcare law.

Healthcare was a taboo subject, until Obama with a democratic majority in both the House and Senate managed to pass the ACA. But not a single Republican voted for it. It shows that Republican politicians can never accept healthcare laws.

So, the only way to get good healthcare in America is to flood the supreme court with democrat judges. But doing so, I fear, might destroy this country.

 

To change it in certain ways or with certain powers is where the question of constitutionality comes in.

 

There is no packing the court, only changing the system such that whenever a party holds the WH and Senate the Supreme Court flips. That would be the consequence.

 

Forcing Americans to buy products they neither need nor want is unconstitutional. The government picking winners and losers in the marketplace is un-American if not unconstitutional. Obamacare did both.

Roberts allowed the individual mandate to pass the constitutionality test by changing it to a tax. So, your healthcare collection agency is now the IRS. Barrett is on record saying at the time that writing laws is the role of the legislative and executive branches, that Roberts overstepped his role. Since Democrats have historically packed the courts with judges who are wannabe dictators, judges who rule on what the law SHOULD say in their eyes as opposed to what it says. That is why Democrats set out to destroy Barrett as they did Kavanaugh as they have with any nominee who respects the rule of law and the role of the judiciary under the Constitution.

The mandate on companies was designed to bankrupt small companies who couldn't afford the cost of providing medical coverage for their employees, to benefit the large multinationals who vote Democrat for that reason.

 

I'm sure the for-profit medical industry had its hands slipping money into the back pockets of politicians to make sure our healthcare reform became a money pot for the insurance industry by requiring people buy health insurance.

But even if we went to a single-payer system that might be considered forcefully requiring people to pay taxes to the new government-run health care. Is that what it looks like to you too?

 

Never had better healthcare than the plans provided by my employers. Never had worse healthcare than during the gap between employer plans and Medicare eligibility ---- that was Obamacare. I mostly avoided care under Obamacare. The only thing worse was to pay a tax to get no care. I did that one year.
Since then, I have been eligible for Medicare funded by taxes I paid over my career. The Supplement + Part D + Eye + Dental is expensive, but provides good coverage.
There was no reason for Democrats to take over healthcare. Insurance company revenue was about 15% more than medical expenses, 10% of which was operating expenses, and perhaps 5% profit. In fact, given that insurance companies receive discounted rates, premiums likely reflect the medical expenses alone.

Single Payer looks like the VA did. The VA ran 2 wait lists under Obama, one that the Democrat marketing arm, the media, reported --- the real one that killed people for lack of care.

A huge expense is pharmaceuticals. So, drug companies have huge up front expenses, R&D, testing, clinical trials, etc. These costs dwarf production costs ,,,, so once a drug us developed, Pharma can charge anyone anything as long as the upfront costs are covered. So, we allowed other countries to dictate the price they would pay for drugs ,,, leaving Americans to pay the balance. Trump is fixing this. We really need to find out on whose watch drug production, the cheapest component of cost, was outsourced to China. That was silly, unless there was extortion involved.

 

Where does the constitution give the federal government the power to -require- that everyone purchase health care insurance?
Article / section / clause, please.

 

Why I think that you're looking for the 10th amendment.

Specifically the part about reserving the rights of the people. And, one can assume, like I did, that the people voting Democrats into office to set healthcare policy is that right reserved for the people.

 

The 10th amendment reserves the power to require people to buy health insurance to the states, as said power is not given to the federal government.
Thus, if the federal government creates such a requirement, it violates the 10th Amendment.
And so: Unconstitutional

"The people" are an entity unto themselves, separate from the states and the federal government.
"The people" have no power to enact legislation and therefore cannot create a legal requirement to buy health insurance.

 

But if we take the order of said entities, from least to most important, it's Federal, then states, then the people.

The people entity can't vote for legislation directly, but they do elect the entities in government. So I say that the winning government rules by mandate.

 

You must not be an American. - your understanding of the 10th Amendment cannot be more wrong.

 

I dont think a government Healthcare plan is unconstitutional. I think it should be handled at the state level. And I think the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

 

List of rights, such as requiring that the constitution have a provision specifically granting health care before we can have it is also a misunderstanding of the 10th amendment.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-x/interps/129

Anyway, are we going to ignore that little remark about the people? Because that's the same cherry picking that is used to protect people's 2nd amendment rights to guns.

 

I disagree with replacing Federal health care programs to the states. They can never survive in cash strapped states. It's just a backhanded way to kill programs off.

 

No. It's not. Its -exactly- what the 10th amendment does.
If the power is not granted to the federal government, it lies with the states, or the people.
It says so right in the text.

The only question posed by the Tenth Amendment is whether a claimed federal power was actually delegated to the national government by the Constitution, and that question is answered by studying the enumerated powers, not by studying the Tenth Amendment.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-x/interps/129

I addressed this.
"The people" are an entity unto themselves, separate from the states and the federal government.
"The people" have no power to enact legislation and therefore cannot create a legal requirement to buy health insurance.

 

US spends more on what you call "health care" than any other country and we are fatter and sicker than ever. While Dems may have the best of intentions, results show that it is doing more harm than good. Neither party is willing to stand up to the powerful food and drug companies. ACA should be squashed along with subsidies for the foods creating our record levels of illness.

 

The issue is not whether healthcare is unconstitutional -- it definitely and unequivocally is not -- but whether the ACA is unconstitutional. And it clearly is. Rewriting law from the bench is almost always a metaphor, but in Roberts case he literally rewrote the ACA from the bench -- changing "fee" to "tax" -- to make it such that he could rule it constitutional. An interesting side note, hardly mentioned or given any thought, is by changing the word (and substance) to tax he inadvertently made the ACA unconstitutional again because a tax bill must, by the constitutional, originate in the House, not the Senate where the ACA originated.

 

Healthcare unconstitutional?

They’re not arguing about “healthcare”.

One side is arguing with the tax penalty removed (‘17) from the individual mandate invalidates it from falling under Congresses taxing power.

Robert’s was the 5th vote in ‘12 on the latter.

The court is already stacked and has been for quite a while.

 

States are cash strapped because they are too reliant on the federal government and provide too much money to the fed. Our government is too centralized.