ABA Journal

Just another reason why the bill should have created a national health system and demolished the USA’s uniquely silly private insurance system once and for all.

By AndytheLawyer on 2010 03 22, 7:25 am CDT

Dear Professor, what on earth does economic inactivity mean?  Have you ever heard of the Agriculture Department program requiring farmers not to plant above a quota?  The Supreme Court upheld that on the grounds that excessive planting affects commerce, Congress could have reasonably concluded.  Though Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas may well like ot overrule Wickard v. Filburn, I don’t think Justice Kennedy would go that far. Here, failure to buy insurance has a far greater impact on commerce—it breaks the system because with restrictions on insurance companies imposed and costing money, someone needs to pay for it—we call it spreading the risk.
I know that this opinion would not attract publicity, but then again I don’t float ideas that President Obama will nominate himself to the Supreme Court.

By JR on 2010 03 22, 11:21 am CDT

ATL - You’re right; the U.S. needs to hasten its adoption of the non-silly health care systems in the UK and Canada, which provide slow, substandard care at a greater cost—and that is when they do provide any health care services at all.  Plus, having a government bureaucrat with sovereign mimmunity decide your health care needs is so much better than having such decisions made by a private insurance company that can be sued for failing to provide you with adequate care.  Obviously, the majority of Americans who do not want this program are wrong; the slim voting majority in the House of Representatives, however, is all knowing and all seeing.  How lucky we are to have elected such smart people, and what a coincidence it is that they all happen to be Democrats.

By OhioLawyer on 2010 03 22, 11:31 am CDT

I don’t understand why this has to be such a binary issue.  Surely there’s some middle-ground that will prevent the inadequacies of truly “socialized medicine” and the abuse people suffer by the insurance companies in our purely profit-driven system.

And I stopped believing that the PQ Doctrine was anything more than a sham a looong time ago.

Bush v. Gore was almost certainly unconstitutional.  But to whom do you complain when a politicized supreme court acts unconstitutionally?

By Another Andy on 2010 03 22, 12:16 pm CDT

JR:

I think there is some circularity in your argument: “Congress can base an individual insurance purchase requirement on the commerce clause because Congress has designed a commerical insurance system that will break unless individuals are forced to participate in it.” Isn’t the Consitutionally correct answer for Congress to design a different system?

By DB on 2010 03 22, 12:35 pm CDT

Ohio—there’s a reason the USA is the only first world nation without a national health.  We’re the only nation that decided to make health care a profit center.  iI’s not civilized, but it IS American.

Say what you like about government beaurocrats instead of private for-profit insurer beaurocrats making health care decisions.  The former are not getting paid huge bonuses for denying health care to insureds—the latter are.  Your assertion that private insurers can be sued for such decisions is dead wrong with respect to employer-provided health plans (i.e. most of the nation’s health insurance)—ERISA bars such suits.

As for the quality and efficiency of health care in the civilized part of the first world, try it sometime.  I have, and have had no complaints.

By AndytheLawyer on 2010 03 22, 12:38 pm CDT

#5.  Congress did not design—economics dictates.  If you want to have universal coverage, you need a mandate.  Are you trying to say that universal converage violates the Constitution?  One could say that if one believes in a Constitution frozen in time. Insurance did not exist in 1787.

By JR on 2010 03 22, 1:14 pm CDT

IF CONGRESS can force me to purchase health care, it can force me to purchase anything. There is no way this is constitutionally-protected, and without the mandate, even the advocates admit that the bill would be an absolute failure.

As for the gov’t-run health care systems in other countries, they are absolutely horrible. You have to wait at least a year for basic dental care in the UK—people pull their own teeth with pliers. A member of Canada’s parliament, a progressive gov’t health care enthusiast, fled to the U.S. a couple of months ago for health care. I guess his system is good enough for Canadians, but not for him….

And to suggest that the U.S. health care system is all about “profit” is to declare such sophomoric ignorance. The monies that are made through the private health care system in the U.S. go largely into research, development, and innovation. Sure, a country like France can reduce costs, but the result is that they contribute NEXT TO NOTHING when it comes to medical advancements. That is left to the good ol’ U.S. of A.

Without the American privatized health system, innovation and research is going to slow dramatically. The 40% of doctors who are going to quit won’t help either. This an absolute disaster for public health.

By Jimmy on 2010 03 22, 4:06 pm CDT

It’s curious to see Americans refer to horror stories of Canada and UK so often when they need to attack the HCR reform while they never point to a single incident in Germany, Japan or France. Maybe it’s because they speak only English and have no knowledge or experience at all in Non-English-speaking countries, and maybe a part of the reason why the horror stories on waiting period are concentrated only in UK and Canada is that they suffer a severe shortage of doctors because English-speaking doctors are drained to US, where they can charge whatever they can thanks to the good ol’ “free market”, gauging patients with the help of private insurance companies.
Sure, the SCOTUS will throw out the HCR bill with 5-4 decision. What is beyond the audacity and political will of the five justices when they invited communist-Chinese-owned corporations into American elections?

By HonestObserver on 2010 03 23, 6:49 am CDT

If the British and Canadian health care systems are so bad, why do those countries (and many others) stand above the US in objective measures of public health?  E.g., infant mortality and average lifespan?

For every anecdote there is a counter-anecdote.  I met a couple who would move to the US, but for the fact that they would not have the health care they get in Canada.

By Walt Fricke on 2010 03 23, 2:46 pm CDT

I have friends who used to live in Canada, and still have parents living in Canada.  They think the health care in Canada is excellent, and if someone needs a specialist of a type not available in Canada, patients are sent to the US to see such a specialist, and the cost is covered by Canada.

By Alice on 2010 03 23, 3:48 pm CDT

It was widely reported two weeks ago that Sarah Palin and her family used to travel from Alaska to Canada to meet their health care needs.

By AndytheLawyer on 2010 03 23, 6:36 pm CDT

#8 Jimmy is absolutely right.  You can argue ‘til you’re blue in the face about what system would be “best” (which, for most people, simply means what system would be in their *own* best, short-term interests), but there is no way this is Constitutional.  It’s just absurd to suggest that Congress has the power to dictate that someone must purchase a certain product.  True that the commerce clause has already crept far, far beyond what was ever intended, but if Congress can go this far then there really is no limit left on the power of the federal gov’t.  Yesterday was a tragic day in the history of our Republic, probably the end of the greatest experiment in freedom that has ever existed (unless the “law” is overturned).

And anyone who thinks this legislation was somehow a slapdown to the bogeyman insurance industry is just delusional.  What business wouldn’t love to have the federal gov’t decree that 30-some million people have to buy its product??

By Lex Luthor on 2010 03 24, 8:31 am CDT

@ #10 Walt - could it possibly be because Americans are by far the most obese, inactive, unhealthy, junk-food-eating, over-medicated (legally and illegally) people in the world?

Nah, that couldn’t be it, right?  Because if that were the case, people would actually have to take personal responsibility for their health and lifestyle choices, rather than relying on someone else to fix it for them (and for free).  And we couldn’t have that now, could we.

By Lex Luthor on 2010 03 24, 8:44 am CDT

Sorry, but my money is with the dumb money.

By zekethewonderdog on 2010 03 25, 12:03 am CDT