Senators Question Mandatory Health Insurance Constitutionality
August 13th, 2010 | 
Author: 
Scott P. Brown’s win yesterday may be a harbinger of things to come for Obama’s health care reform plan; the idea of universal health insurance first touted in Obama’s platform for change seems to be on the verge of severe change itself. One question Republicans will likely concentrate on at present is whether mandatory private insurance violates the constitution or not.
The shock of a Republican winner in Massachusetts, a traditionally very, blue, very Democratic state is just beginning to be felt. One thing, however, is sure – voters are angry. The Obama administration’s focus on passing health care reform to make affordable health insurance more accessible to masses seems to have caused ire in his constituency. With the effects of the recession still on everyone’s mind, the concentration on health care has hampered Obama’s plans. Now Republicans have the power to impede those exact plans.
Republicans have plenty to discuss. Many Republicans have seen the health care plan from the get-go as a travesty to local governments. It would put a tax burden on small businesses, the rich, as well as unions. The cost of these new taxes may be more of a hindrance than a blessing. Furthermore, Republicans fear it would put Big Brother at the helm.
The big question remains: is mandatory private health insurance constitutional? Democrats cite the case of Social Security, which was approved by the Supreme Court in 1937 as a tax and spending program to provide insurance for the retired. No doubt, Social Security is not the most perfect plan, but has thus far worked.
The only problem with the Social Security argument is that Social Security remains a federal insurance, whereas the proposed Obama insurance is a private affair. American citizens, would essentially, be forced to buy their own private health insurance.
Republicans fear large government interference in the private lives of its citizens. Too much regulation takes away the freedoms of Americans as stated in the Constitution itself. Democrats would argue that it counts as economic activity, which can be regulated by Congress. Others find that argument to be rather flimsy. Where exactly does the Federal government have the authority to force its citizens to buy private insurance? What will the Supreme Court have to say? States already regulate car insurance, but that is on a state-to-state basis.
This is, by no means, a new issue. In November, Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oregon and Representative John Shadegg of Arizona began a push to force Congress to have to consider the authority of any legislation put forth. The legislation entitled “The Enumerated Powers Act”, has brought with it a large amount of discussion, however not much action.
Senator Obama has many challenges ahead. The Republican win last night indicates that people want a change. The question of the constitutionality of mandatory private health insurance looms. Republicans are expected to press the issue. However, many liberals and progressives have also questioned it. This may prove difficult for any health care reform – at least as it exists now – to succeed. Health care talks in the Senate are expected to come to a close soon.
Watch the video related to health insurance
Buy the DVD: www.shoppbs.org BMJL4306_052209:N:DGR:N:N:609:QPBS Washington’s abuzz about health care, but why isn’t a single-payer plan an option on the table? Public Citizen’s Dr. Sidney Wolfe and Physicians for a National Health Program’s Dr. David Himmelstein on the political and logistical feasibility of health care reform.
Help answer the question about health insurance
What individual health insurance is good but cheap in Forida?Hey. Please somebody help me. I am employed but don't get any health insurance. I am 27 and single and need a good health insurance but cheap. I live in Florida. Can somebody can help me with that?
Posted in 
Tags:
1) Most employer provided health insurance is deducted "pre-tax" so there is no deduction on the tax return.
2) Your parents must be your dependents (or would have been your dependents except for the gross income test) for you to take a deduction anyway. So, unless you are supporting them: No.
If you are self employeed you should take a serious look into Health Savings Accounts, for several reasons, starting with there is a huge savings on your monthly premiums regardless if you are insuring yourself or you and your family. Things that are considered by the insruance companies are the area you live in, the type of work you do and any pre-existing conditions you might have. If you are in the state of California, and you have employees, you need a minimum of two employees and/or 75% of the payroll to participate in the plan (regardless of HSA or regular insurance) to get a guaranteed issuance of the insurance.
If you are not self employeed but do have a job, again the HSA is great way to go, because you can make pretax contirbutions to the plan, take it with you where ever you go, and keep the insurance with you when you retire… which as common sense tells us, you are going to need healthcare much more in your retirement years (ie when you are older) then you will now. Also any qualified medical expenses can be paid tax free from the account, and once you hit your deductable out your account, anything above that is paid for by the backing insurance company.
One note about the non bias oppinon of "brokers," they get paid on a commission as well by the companies they represent, and some companies pay more than others. Just because you are working with an "independant" does not mean you are getting the best price, or service. You want to work with someone who knows the products that they work with inside and out, or have access to the people who do so that all your questions can be answered to your satisfaction. Some times a huge selection does not mean a huge savings in time and money.
There are certain government programs and nonprofit organizations that can help.
One such program is at:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/financialassistance.html
For a list of federally funded health centers go to:
http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/
You can find many more government and low cost resources for all kinds of health concerns at
http://www.simplyinsurancequotes.com/links.php?id=bghott12bq09
————————-
Here you can get quotes for private insurance:
http://www.simplyinsurancequotes.com/healthcomparison.html?id=xyo0tt24m009
more at:
http://www.getinstantcover.motoclassica.co.uk/AmericanHealthQuotes.html?id=xyo0tt24m009
@MillionthUsername OK, fair enough on your position. I respect that. I’m a capitalist. I better be, I’m in sales. However, you can never convince me or most Canadians that free market healthcare works, when it clearly doesn’t.
And comparing food to healthcare, is like comparing driving a bus to driving a bike.
@MadHabber93 Triage is not normal for the provision of goods and
services in a free market. The reason they employ this emergency
tactic is because they have severely curtailed the free market and
must therefore make do with what they have created.
When you go shopping, you don’t expect grocers to only let the
most hungry buy food, do you? Of course not.
What are you trying to say regarding population? What does that
have to do with the # of surgeons in a free health care market?
You've asked a very broad question. There is no simple answer.
In truth, health insurance works a little differently in each state.
To answer your specific questions:
1) No, health insurance is not compulsory for everyone. If you're lucky, you are able to join a group policy at work. (If you're really lucky, it's a good policy and the employer pays at least half of it.) Some states have recently made it compulsory, but that's such a recent change that there's no clear cut answer yet for how that's going to work.
2) What happens if someone can't afford it is… they don't get it, usually. Except if your income puts you below the "poverty level", in which case you qualify for Medicaid. (In some states there are programs that typically provide assistance with insuring children, though they are few and far between for covering adults.)
3) Health insurance rarely covers all the bills when you have a procedure done. Most plans cover 50-80% after you meet your deductible. The deductible amounts vary widely (but the trend is that the deductibles are getting higher and higher to keep the premiums down.) If you're really, REALLY lucky, you don't have a deductible (which is only an option on group plans), and you may only have to pay 10% of covered charges. (These plans are few and far between. As in, you might have them if you're in Congress.)
4) Yes, the patient has some say over procedures. However, if the patient opts for an "experimental" procedure, or one that isn't deemed "medically necessary", then health insurance may refuse to cover any charges at all.
In the end, as with most things, the middle class takes the brunt of these costs. This has become such a problem that more than 50% of all bankruptcies are as a result of medical bills (and of those, more than 75% had health insurance.)
** Edited to add:
It's not ALL about the money when a procedure is involved. If it is, the state keeps track of complaints filed on behalf of consumers with "managed care" (ie. any type of network arrangement including Preferred Provider Organizations, Health Maintenance Organizations, and Point of Service organizations — also known as PPO, HMO, and POS) and may very well revoke a company's charter to do business in the state should the company be turning down too many legitimate claims.
However, insurance companies are sticklers for following the "standard" for medical care. This is what makes it difficult to answer your question. Because they should not deny anything that's considered standard for care in the given circumstances (should not and will not being two completely different things, of course.) And there may be several options that would be considered "standard." If the patient wants treatment that isn't yet considered "standard", they would balk. Period.
@MadHabber93 For the tenth time, I am not defending the US system!
I’m saying that THEY ALL SUCK.
We need to have the FREEDOM to be a real civil society where
people are ALLOWED to MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES and to
PROVIDE GOODS AND SERVICES to others on a VOLUNTARY
basis without being forced to fund political scams which rob
people and deny them access to the things they want and need.
I don’t care about this Canada vs US garbage. I’m making a
philosophical argument which applies everywhere.
@Fdzzaigl What are you trying to say about fascism and socialism? They don’t exist, right? Yes, I know. This is the new mind control. Fascism doesn’t exist.
Socialism doesn’t exist. No policy can be said to be either socialistic or fascistic.
Fine. Call it whatever the hell you want. Just keep it to yourself and don’t
force it on me.
I don’t know what the rest of your post is supposed to mean. Yes, they
steal money from us and take our liberties. So? We’re supposed to like
it?
@MadHabber93 Give me a break. There are thousands of horror stories
out there.
Look, the very fact that you admit you have to wait for a non-life-threatening
surgery is proof that you care is being rationed. I’m glad that you think you
can get surgery right away if the condition is immediately life-threatening,
but that just means they are doing triage.
In a free market, supply rushes to meet demand. Since there is a need
for more surgeons and space there WILL be more of them.
Its a sad day in our country when 45,000 people die annually from the simply fact of not being able to afford health insurance…. and on top of that 65% of all bankruptcies in this country are medically related… common people wake up and lets stop these insurance companies that deny coverage when someone gets cancer or needs to any costly healthcare, sure we can wont get denied healthcare but whats the point of receiving it when you will be losing everything you have every worked for?
i htought the main reason of living in a society was to help each other out, am i wrong?
The purpose of any type of insurance is to protect against catastrophic loss. Using health insurance as an example, most everyday medical expenses are not very expensive (a physical exam averages $150.00+/-), but if you are admitted to the hospital for an emergency your medical bills would be in the tens of thousands of dollars at a minimum. If you do not have insurance you "self-insure" againts that potential catastrophic loss. Without insurance, the average person would face financial ruin if faced with a major loss.
most insurance will cover the costs you mention if the doctor thinks it is medically necessary.
Well, if she's 40 and perfectly healthy, it's going to cost her about $500 a month to have a low/no deductible plan that covers checkups.
You BUY it on a month to month basis. If you want low monthly payments, you have to cut the coverage – like take a $10,000 deductible. Or higher. That would cut payments down to maybe $200 a month or less.
The older she is, the less healthy she is, the more it costs.
Your best bet, is to find a local, independent agent, who can help you balance cost with coverage.
@MillionthUsername And as far as your free market increasing supply of surgeons, you do realize that the U.S. doc/population is virtually the same as Canada’s right?? Not to mention, we actually have more family docs/population??
ANd yes, its called triage. Meaning the more urgent patient is seen first, not the one with the better insurance. I guess we’re just humane that way. Call us crazy.
@MillionthUsername And for every ‘horror’ story in Canada there are 1000 in the States of Americans forgoing life saving procedures, let alone elective surgeries. SO, please, stop throwing stones when you live in a very fragile glass house.
@forestskog Insurance was created by the market to solve that problem.
Nothing that gov’t does is economical since all it does is steal. It cannot
economically allocate resources since there is no way to calculate profit
and loss. It just steals or prints money to pay for the skyrocketing costs
and massive waste and fraud in its systems of looting.
There is no “merit” whatsoever to any system run by a gang of gov’t
morons. If there were, they wouldn’t have to rely on FORCE to implement
it.
No.
The insurance through your husband's employer does not meet the test of having been established through the S-corp.