It’s called “Free Trade”, and we have that in a treaty with the other nations of the Americas.Eesh, don’t you conservatives do your homework before you post?
p.s: I’m not a Liberal, I’m a Centrist who is a registered Independent. No party affiliation means that both of the Big Two have to convince me to vote for them.
Agree the REPUBLICAN pushed component forcing purchase of PRIVATE policies from CORPORATE suppliers shouldn’t have been in the bill the way it was. Single payer, like Medicare, made more economic sense, and didn’t directly “participate in commerce”. Odd indeed though that when Obama signed it, the very thing Republicans wrote in, and touted over a decade ago, was suddenly “evil”.
The purpose of the mandate is to generate additional funding to allow for the expansion of health care benefits. Thus the private insurance system would be enabled to pay for those with pre-existing conditions, no lifetime maximums, etc. It gets more folks into the system, more skin in the game. That having health insurance is “good for them” is only one aspect of the matter.
In the most basic terms, the test of constitutionality is:
Is “health care” an item of interstate commerce, or does it have a substantial effect on commerce?; andIs there a rational basis for the regulation congress has proposed?
If the answer is yes to both, a law stands.
Most “experts” I’ve seen think the neutral arbiter’s answer to both, based on existing precedent, should be “yes”. Hence the AHA would stand as written.
Ketira about 12 years ago
You must be a teen. The Shrub (Bush Jr.) started that nonsense and not the Republican party itself. Didn’t you take US History class?
Ketira about 12 years ago
It’s called “Free Trade”, and we have that in a treaty with the other nations of the Americas.Eesh, don’t you conservatives do your homework before you post?
Ketira about 12 years ago
p.s: I’m not a Liberal, I’m a Centrist who is a registered Independent. No party affiliation means that both of the Big Two have to convince me to vote for them.
Dtroutma about 12 years ago
Agree the REPUBLICAN pushed component forcing purchase of PRIVATE policies from CORPORATE suppliers shouldn’t have been in the bill the way it was. Single payer, like Medicare, made more economic sense, and didn’t directly “participate in commerce”. Odd indeed though that when Obama signed it, the very thing Republicans wrote in, and touted over a decade ago, was suddenly “evil”.
dfowensby about 12 years ago
as to the cartoon, as usual, it really makes no sense. not exactly a racy or controversial subject. nothing going on here, folks, move along.
charliekane about 12 years ago
The purpose of the mandate is to generate additional funding to allow for the expansion of health care benefits. Thus the private insurance system would be enabled to pay for those with pre-existing conditions, no lifetime maximums, etc. It gets more folks into the system, more skin in the game. That having health insurance is “good for them” is only one aspect of the matter.
In the most basic terms, the test of constitutionality is:
Is “health care” an item of interstate commerce, or does it have a substantial effect on commerce?; andIs there a rational basis for the regulation congress has proposed?
If the answer is yes to both, a law stands.
Most “experts” I’ve seen think the neutral arbiter’s answer to both, based on existing precedent, should be “yes”. Hence the AHA would stand as written.
But politics may intervene. . .
charliekane about 12 years ago
Yer right. Screw private insurance. Single payor now.;-)