Why Might the Supreme Court Overturn the Health Care Reform Law?

In an interesting article at The Atlantic, Megan McArdle speculates about what might happen if the Supreme Court declared the Health Care Reform Law unconstitutional.

What Would Happen if the Supreme Court Struck Down Health Care Reform?

(Excerpt Below)

This weekend, I had a conversation with someone non-crazy who thinks there is a not-insignificant chance that the Supreme Court will overturn health care reform, or at least the individual mandate (it’s not clear what happens to the rest of the law if the mandate goes down; there’s some possibility that this would invalidate the entire law).  Mind you, this person was not suggesting that the chances were, say, 85%; more like 25%.
But in a case like this, 25% is a big chance.  So we spent a bit of time speculating about what would happen next.

At one point in the article, there’s an interesting link to a discussion of insurance and risk that touches on the issue of moral hazard.

(Excerpt Below)

The problem of moral hazard also affects government programs that insure people against misfortune. A variety of programs help people who suffer the misfortune of poverty. Aid to dependent children helps people who suffer the misfortune of having children to raise that they cannot financially support. Unemployment compensation pays people who suffer the misfortune of losing their jobs. Food stamps and public housing help the poor. Yet all these programs also suffer from problems of moral hazard. They increase children born out of wedlock, unemployment, and poverty.

Moral hazard is the result of maximizing behavior. A person weighs the costs and benefits of an action, and when benefits exceed costs, he takes the action.

This idea of moral hazard and maximizing behavior is one very good reason why the U.S. goverment should stay out of the healthcare (and charity) business. Bureaucracies are notorious for allowing the perpetuation of fraud, abuse, and scams.

But even more striking is the idea that if the penalty for not carrying health insurance were lower then the cost of purchasing a plan, and one didn’t qualify for significant assistance in the purchase of health insurance, then many people might choose to forgo coverage altogether. Therefore, the reasons given for the necessity of including within the law a mandate that everyone have approved coverage don’t hold up. If everyone must have coverage to keep rates affordable, but people can opt out by paying a lower-cost penalty instead, then the rates won’t be affordable, because the moral hazard is that people will choose the option that is best for them—not the option that’s best for everyone else—and who can blame them when it’s merely human nature and valid self-interest?

But back to my point.

By declaring the Healthcare Reform Law unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court could redraw the lines marking the boundary of the Federal government’s power. The mandate, to me, seems the most likely area where the Federal government has overstepped its bounds. There’s also the issue of the Federal government using the commerce clause as the authority that gives it the power to regulate the health care insurance market. I think this is a clear stretching of the clause’s intent and purpose and I have high hopes that the Supreme Court will agree.

Would the entire law be thrown out if the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated any particular part of the law? I don’t know, but I would certainly hope so.

Free Health Insurance – A Disturbing Myth

According to Google, almost 10,000 people search for "free health insurance" each month. The sad thing is some people actually believe there’s free health insurance coming their way since the passage of the recent health reform law. Misinformation abounds and no one wants to hear that free is never really free.

Even if you do qualify for "free" health insurance under the plan, and I don’t know what the qualifications for that might be, somebody, notably taxpayers, are paying for that free care.

Recent reports have stated that nearly half of all American’s don’t actually have to pay federal income taxes (the portion of taxes paid that will be used to fund the expenses of the healthcare law). This means that only about half of America is going to be expected to pay for or subsidize health insurance premiums for the other half of the country. That number should disturb you.

If you went into work one day and was told that half of you were going to have to pool your money so that it could be distributed to the other half of your company’s workforce, how would you feel?

Robbed is the word I’d use, and yes, that’s exactly how I feel now—and it’s probably not even that much of my money that’s going to be used because I come from a small rural community where incomes are modest by national standards and my federal tax liability last year was a meager $981 after the $800 making work pay tax credit.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want anyone else’s money unless I’ve earned it, and I know I haven’t earned it just by living and breathing.

The thing is, I would be phenomenally angry to discover that someone was stealing money out of my family money jar to pay for something for someone else, no matter the reason. This kind of forced charity does nothing but create resentment and anger, and I don’t like what it’s doing to Americans as a whole. We’re becoming angry enough not to want to give anything, because we’re sick and tired of being forced to give and give and give.

The healthcare reform law is imposing a form of collectivism and socialism on the American people, no doubt about it. Going against the founding principles of our nation is never the right thing, even though many people will tell you that giving is the right thing to do. Forced giving? How is that right?

There’s no such thing as free health insurance—just free-to-somebody health insurance.

States Suing Federal Government Over Health Care Reform

Arizona and Nevada to Sue Federal Government Over Health Care Reform

A significant percentage of the states, 32% in fact, are challenging this law. I have hopes that this challenge will result in this law being completely thrown out. However, in case this doesn't happen, we need to continue the push for repeal of this law.

Recent Bias in the News about Passing of Healthcare Reform

Opinion: GOP needs to grow up, get back to work

(Selected Excerpts Below)

By Roland S. Martin

Republicans on Capitol Hill are acting like spoiled brats after Democrats snatched victory from the jaws of defeat by passing health care reform.

This is where President Obama should say the heck with all of this partisan nonsense. He should say, "Either you get in the game or get out of the way."

This is the nonsense that voters have tired of. If politicians on both sides are there to represent their views, then they have to do it. For the GOP, stop canceling hearings. Stop threatening not to engage in legislative negotiations. And if Republicans make it clear they will say no to everything, the Democrats must learn to lead and go it alone.

The author of this piece is clearly expressing a biased attitude in this editorial, as the quote above shows. Read the entire article for more samples of biased opinion. Expressly, "If politicians on both sides are there to represent their views, then they have to do it" offends me.

Did the polls not show that the majority of Americans were against the Healthcare Reform Bill that has since become law? Why are the Democrats not being held up to this standard? Democrats did not vote to represent the views of their constituents.

I am one of those constituents feeling very betrayed right now. I voted for Obama in the last election, which I dearly regret now, even though overall I do still like him—but I do not approve of the growth in government and spending and I despise the healthcare reform law that puts my individual rights into the hands of the federal government.

So that they can do what feels "right" is not why I voted my Representative and Senators into office. I voted them into office to represent my views in Congress.

I was betrayed, as were a majority of the American people. Whatever happens after the fact, even if people do begin to believe the healthcare reform law is satisfactory, never forget that a majority of Americans did not want their Representatives and Senators to vote for this legislation and that their views were not represented by the Democrats in Congress.

Obama on the Cry for Repeal of the Healthcare Law

FoxNews.com covered a recent speech from President Obama in which he reference the call for repeal of the healthcare law.

Obama Dares Republicans to Pursue Repeal of Health Care Law

(Selected Excerpts Below)

President Obama mocked Republicans’ campaign to try to repeal his new health care law, saying Thursday they should "Go for it" and see how well they fare with voters.

Frankly, they’re likely going to fare pretty well with this Independent, formerly Democrat, voter who voted for Obama in the last election.

A different article from The Hill about the speech in question elaborates on President Obama’s comments.

President Obama to repeal-minded Republicans: ‘Go for it’

(Selected Excerpts Below)

President Barack Obama on Thursday flipped into campaign mode and dared Republicans to repeal the healthcare law.

With his signature agenda item signed into law, Obama switched from selling the bill to aggressively promoting it during a speech in Iowa City, Iowa, the town where Obama announced his healthcare reform agenda as a candidate in 2007.

“This is the reform that some folks in Washington are still hollering about. And now that it’s passed, they’re already promising to repeal it,” Obama said. “They’re actually going to run on a platform of repeal in November. Well, I say go for it.”

Watch Thank You Ads for Clues of Who Not to Vote for in November

Pro-Obama groups plan health care ad blitz

(Selected Excerpts Below)

Washington (CNN) — Democratic legislators in 40 Congressional districts are about to see TV ads thanking them for their support of the health care reform bill the president signed into law Tuesday, Democratic officials told CNN.

The $5 million ad campaign is being paid for by several pro-Obama groups, three officials said, and will target Democrats like Rep. Tom Perriello in Virginia and Rep. Bob Etheridge in North Carolina, who serve in tough swing districts and have been under heavy pressure from anti-reform groups from the business community and elsewhere.

The Democratic National Committee, the Obama-affiliated grassroots group Organizing for America and labor unions like the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the Service Employees International Union are among the key sponsors of the ads.

Catholics United, a group of Catholics who support abortion rights and supported the reform effort, is also involved in the coalition.

The Democratic officials vowed the ads would only be the first phase of a sustained campaign between now and the mid-term elections in November to support endangered incumbents who supported Obama’s top domestic priority.

Since many people I know were against this bill, watching these televised thank you ads is a good way to pick out who you shouldn’t support come November. As this news article says, these will likely be the endangered incumbents and are the most easily ousted from the next Congress.

Health Insurance Gender Discrimination

Gender discrimination in health insurance exists. It exists in the same way that gender discrimination exists in automobile insurance. Guys pay more in one, girls more in the other.

The reason is simple. A young woman is more likely to use more health services than a young man, the same as a young man is more likely to have more automobile accidents.

Should the government be labeling this discrimination?

My answer is a most emphatic NO. This label is an insult to the real issue of gender discrimination the world over.

I think not, but a Democratic Senator just did so in his speech in the healthcare amendment debate in the U.S. Senate.

(Via C-Span2 – http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx)

Social Justice – Playing Robin Hood

I have to admit, when I was a little girl, it never occurred to me to wonder why Robin Hood was the good guy. He stole from the rich to give to the poor, and I grew up under that ideology. Now that I look back, though, I wonder why all the rich folk of the story are portrayed as evil and only Robin Hood can save the downtrodden people.

There’s one key difference between the society of Robin Hood and our American Society, and that difference is how "rich" is made.

Robin Hood lived in the time of serfdom, where you were either born rich or born poor, and there was never any way to change that. The opportunity to create wealth didn’t exist for those poor. That’s not the case in America.

Robin Hood is not someone I want my kids to look up to in a modern perspective. Because without that historical background, my kids might just think I’m promoting a "take from the rich and give to the poor" philosophy.

Then again, I’ve been pretty clear with my kids that this isn’t the way to go so maybe they’ll be able to guard against the insidiousness of the current Social Justice climate in America.

Robin Hood might have been a hero in his day, but in America, today, Robin Hood is a thief.

Many of the rich in America worked long and hard to become rich, after being poor for many years themselves.

The kind of social justice that promotes redistributing wealth is not the kind of social justice America needs.

The new Healthcare Reform law signed by President Obama yesterday tries to do just that. It takes from people who have good healthcare insurance plans or people who don’t need healthcare insurance plans, and gives to those who don’t have health insurance. If someone wants to self-insure, they should be allowed to do so. If someone wants health insurance but can’t afford it, maybe they should think about dropping their cable and cell phone. Seriously. I paid $5,000 in premiums annually for health insurance when my family of 4 had a gross income of less than $25,000 a year. We made sacrifices, but that was our choice. Too many people these days act like children and refuse to make tough choices. Don’t be one of them.

Life is not fair and this desperate need of the Social Justice movement to make life fair is a disgrace to the diversity of the world and the human population.

If you believe this is about healthcare, think again. This is about insurance for healthcare. It would be no different if Congress passed a law that said everyone who could afford homeowner’s or renter’s insurance should subsidize those who can’t afford it.

And if we let this law stand, if we do not repeal this bill, this is exactly what might eventually happen.

Anyone playing Robin Hood in America today deserves to go to jail for theft. Government officials included.

Reprint permission granted, if article is reprinted in its entirety with proper credit and a link back to:  Repeal Healthcare Reform Bill

Democratic “No” Votes for the Flawed Healthcare Reform Bill

One of the No votes coming from House Democrats was my own Representative, Lincoln Davis.

Davis Statement on Healthcare Vote

(Complete Statement Follows)

March 21, 2010

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Rep. Lincoln Davis released the following statement on Sunday’s healthcare vote:

“Having analyzed this issue as the congressman from the Fourth Congressional District, and as I have articulated to constituents in Tennessee and leaders in Washington, there are reasons why I could not support this legislation. One of the main reasons, if not the most important, being that the overwhelming majority of the constituents I represent opposed this plan, regardless of their party affiliation.”

If only all Representatives had chosen to follow the will of their constituents.

Follows is a list of all Democrats who voted “No” on the healthcare reform bill.

(From OpenCongress.org)

Name	Voted
Rep. John Adler [D, NJ-3]	Nay
Rep. Jason Altmire [D, PA-4]	Nay
Rep. Michael Arcuri [D, NY-24]	Nay
Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12]	Nay
Rep. Robert Berry [D, AR-1]	Nay
Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2]	Nay
Rep. Frederick Boucher [D, VA-9]	Nay
Rep. Bobby Bright [D, AL-2]	Nay
Rep. Ben Chandler [D, KY-6]	Nay
Rep. Travis Childers [D, MS-1]	Nay
Rep. Artur Davis [D, AL-7]	Nay
Rep. Lincoln Davis [D, TN-4]	Nay
Rep. Thomas Edwards [D, TX-17]	Nay
Rep. Parker Griffith [D, AL-5]	Nay
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin [D, SD-0]	Nay
Rep. Tim Holden [D, PA-17]	Nay
Rep. Larry Kissell [D, NC-8]	Nay
Rep. Frank Kratovil [D, MD-1]	Nay
Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D, IL-3]	Nay
Rep. Stephen Lynch [D, MA-9]	Nay
Rep. James Marshall [D, GA-8]	Nay
Rep. Jim Matheson [D, UT-2]	Nay
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7]	Nay
Rep. Michael McMahon [D, NY-13]	Nay
Rep. Charles Melancon [D, LA-3]	Nay
Rep. Walter Minnick [D, ID-1]	Nay
Rep. Glenn Nye [D, VA-2]	Nay
Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7]	Nay
Rep. Mike Ross [D, AR-4]	Nay
Rep. Heath Shuler [D, NC-11]	Nay
Rep. Ike Skelton [D, MO-4]	Nay
Rep. Zachary Space [D, OH-18]	Nay
Rep. John Tanner [D, TN-8]	Nay
Rep. Gene Taylor [D, MS-4]	Nay
Rep. Harry Teague [D, NM-2]	Nay

Tennessee Senator Bob Corker Disappointed in House Passage of Health Care Reform Bill

Corker Disappointed in House Passage of Health Care, Says Cost Will Hit Tennessee and Future Generations Hard

March 21 2010 – WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., made the following statement Sunday evening after the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Senate’s version of health reform legislation.

“Tonight’s vote is disappointing, and its cost will hit our state and future generations very hard,” said Corker. “On Friday, Governor Bredesen let me know this bill will cost Tennessee an estimated $1.1 billion in Medicaid expansion over five years – a huge unfunded mandate that creates a very difficult situation for our state.

“Beyond that, I think what bothers me most about the bill are its disingenuous accounting mechanisms. It’s insulting to the American people. First, the bill applies 10 years of new taxes to finance six years of spending, resulting in huge deficits over the next decades. Second, even President Obama’s own Medicare officials have determined that Medicare savings are counted TWICE in the bill, hiding the legislation’s true cost. This comes down to elementary school logic; you can’t spend the same dollar twice. And finally, almost as soon as the ink dries on this legislation, a new bill will come forth to deal with all or part of what is called the ‘doc fix’ to ensure that physicians who treat Medicare recipients do not receive a 21 percent cut. The cost of that over 10 years is more than $200 billion, proving that Americans have not been dealt with squarely on the true accounting associated with this bill.”

Next Page »