Notre Dame Files Lawsuit Over Obamacare

[aaronb]

Then the government gets to tell you what medical procedures YOU will or will not get.

Yeah, that sounds like a fantastic system.




If we go to a single payer system, where will the Canadians go when they get denied in Canada?

The single payer system wouldn't stop someone from seeing another doctor or paying for something themselves out of pocket if they chose to do that. I did some work for an international corp in the UK last summer. I asked the guys in the plant what they thought about the UK health system.

They told me that the people with the means to do so, still have supplemental insurances and ways to "cut the line".

The biggest benefit other than everyone having access to care, is that businesses are able to avoid the huge expense that offering employee healthcare.

 

[Bluto]

Rally not really. You could choose to go to the doctor who would be acting as an independent contractor to the government, who would then diagnose you and then you would choose to either go forward with a procedure (for instance an abortion) or take the presrcibed medication or not. Makes sense to me.

 

[Downinthebend]

The single payer system wouldn't stop someone from seeing another doctor or paying for something themselves out of pocket if they chose to do that. I did some work for an international corp in the UK last summer. I asked the guys in the plant what they thought about the UK health system.

They told me that the people with the means to do so, still have supplemental insurances and ways to "cut the line".

The biggest benefit other than everyone having access to care, is that businesses are able to avoid the huge expense that offering employee healthcare.

Just because some people are able to afford to pay double tuition doesn't mean they should have to (taxes to public school, tuition to private school). This is the same for health care.

 

[Bluto]

It seems that based on that statement you seem to be making the case
for the super rich not having to pay taxes at all.

 

[ACamp1900]

I have infinite more trust in the government to make that decision than some faceless corporation. You make it seem like under the current system you get to make the decision yourself. At least you get to elect your own government.

For me this basically shows the core philosophical division in the country right now... I have felt this way for a long time; we are divided first and foremost on what we feel t the gov. should or should not be doing in our lives.

I wouldn't trust the gov. to wipe my cat’s *** without messing it up somehow... let alone control anything as important as my health care. I don't believe anyone in DC really has our best interests first and foremost. I would also say it's easier to change employers than it is to shift the gov. enough to make your desires play out in policy.

This isn't arguing with you, just mentioning that I think this whole sub topic you just hit on points out the real heart of the country’s politics right now, and with respect, agree to disagree.

 

[Rhode Irish]

What do you think of lobbying?

I think its a constitutional right. I wish our elected officials were better at staying above the fray and not so easily bought.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I think its a constitutional right. I wish our elected officials were better at staying above the fray and not so easily bought.

Do you believe it is constitutional to force citizens to buy a good or service?

 

[gkIrish]

This is definitely the most well-articulated, generally amicable, and enlightening non-football thread I've read since joining. Well done to all

 

[Rhode Irish]

For me this basically shows the core philosophical division in the country right now... I have felt this way for a long time; we are divided first and foremost on what we feel t the gov. should or should not be doing in our lives.

I wouldn't trust the gov. to wipe my cat’s *** without messing it up somehow... let alone control anything as important as my health care. I don't believe anyone in DC really has our best interests first and foremost. I would also say it's easier to change employers than it is to shift the gov. enough to make your desires play out in policy.

This isn't arguing with you, just mentioning that I think this whole sub topic you just hit on points out the real heart of the country’s politics right now, and with respect, agree to disagree.

Yeah I totally agree. This is a legit philosophical difference. I'm probably a bit of an anomaly in this respect, because I actually have a lot of libertarian views. But in general, I think government has gotten a bad wrap and people blame the government for everything. I don't think of government as an evil entity. We are a self-governing people. We ARE the government. That doesn't mean I don't disagree with things the government does, because I do. All the time. But I don't hate it or completely mistrust it like a lot of people seem to.

As far as the insurance part of it, I don't think it is as much about trusting my individual employer as it is about trusting the healthcare insurance providers. I trust them not at all. I could not think of anyone or anything I trust less. I have "good" insurance, and these *******s fight you about everything. I shutter to think what would happen if I got really sick. Part of the reason why I was and am supportive of the healthcare reform we did get, even though I think it was incomplete and not even close to a total fix, is that it at least made some effort to stop the insurance companies from screwing people. Allowing kids to stay on their parents' insurance is a good thing; no discriminating against preexisting conditions is a good thing; no lifetime coverage cap is a good thing. I even believe the individual mandate is a good thing, even in spite of the libertarian in me. I think in this specific case, the ends justify the means.

As far as government vs. private companies, who has more incentive to "ration care"? A supposed free-spending government or a private company that has to worry about bottom lines and accountability to shareholders?

 

[TerryTate]

This is definitely the most well-articulated, generally amicable, and enlightening non-football thread I've read since joining. Well done to all

You should check out The Real Terry Tate

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Rhode Irish,

Do you think it is constitutional for the federal government to force citizens to buy a good or service?

 

[Bluto]

I have to buy auto insurance and home owners insurance.

 

[pkt77242]

Welcome to the party, Ashlee.

We moved on from discussing birth control a while ago, but no one here has argued that women shouldn't have that right. The original topic was whether the Feds have the right to force Catholic organizations to pay for something that contradicts their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Whisky I think you have very well thought out opinions but I think you do miss the point on this, the Feds are telling insurance companies to pay for it not Catholic organizations. And I have yet to hear one peep from the insurance companies and that is probably because they want the rule as it will save them lots of money.

It is much cheaper for the insurance companies to pay for birth control than unplanned pregnancies and that is the reason they aren't complaining. There is no forcing Catholic organizations to pay for birth control.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I have to buy auto insurance and home owners insurance.

You don't have to own a car, or a home.

(And that is state, not federal)

 

[Black Irish]

This is definitely the most well-articulated, generally amicable, and enlightening non-football thread I've read since joining. Well done to all

So, are you saying Golson should start?

 

[Rhode Irish]

Do you believe it is constitutional to force citizens to buy a good or service?

Um....kind of a loaded question, since the issue with the healthcare law is really whether that is technically what the law does. But to try to answer your question, I do not think it is per se unconstitutional to "require" people to buy something. Beyond that, the constitutionality of a particular piece of legislation requiring someone to buy something would be a highly fact-specific question. In most cases, my presumption would be that such a requirement is not constitutional. I would probably apply the highest level of judicial scrutiny to such a law, which would require the law to be necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose.

 

[pkt77242]

To say that this is such an issue is to fail to appreciate the actual situation. The letter written by the university president which accompanies the complaint cannot be any more clear about this.



Neither the letter nor the complaint seek to prevent access to contraception, in fact it has affirmed the right of all persons to make that decision. What is at issue here is a private university asserting its right (1) to the free exercise of its religion and (2) from being forced to subsidize the rights of others. Both of these, though not without moral implications, are fundamentally constitutional issues. First, the First Amendment prohibits government from making laws that specifically target religious activity, both in the application of and motivation for those laws. Second, there is no right to receive, from either a public or a private entity, benefits to secure even fundamental rights, even if that assistance would be necessary.

You have every right to contraception. What you do not have a right to is to force anyone else, whether it is another person, a private entity like Notre Dame, or the government to pay for that right. That's what this is about.

Notre Dame wouldn't be paying for their employees right to have contraception, the insurers would and the insurers aren't complaining (inf fact this rule is going to save them millions of dollars and they are probably rejoicing). 28 states already have laws similar to this on the books, and 2nd it does not infringe on their rights if they don't have to pay for it. Private insurance companies are paying for it and without saying a peep (and if you didn't watch the healthcare law debate, insurance companies will let you know if they don't like something, just look at all the money they spent on influencing the healthcare law).

 

[pkt77242]

Rhode Irish,

Do you think it is constitutional for the federal government to force citizens to buy a good or service?

Your question is not fair.

This isn't buying a tv or car. You can go through life without using either but it is just about impossible to go through life without using healthcare. Try again. The closest thing is car insurance (which you are mandated to have minimum coverage) and before you say I don't have to buy it if I don't drive. Well you can stop buying health insurance when you die and there is no risk of you needing to go to a doctor which is the closest comparison. Sorry almost everyone (well practically everone and while I have no statistic on this, I would like for you to produce a statistic that says the opposite) will use healthcare in their life and most people frequently.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whisky I think you have very well thought out opinions but I think you do miss the point on this, the Feds are telling insurance companies to pay for it not Catholic organizations.

That was Obama's "compromise", which the Church has rejected as illusory. The cost of covering contraception gets passed on to the employer, so it's a meaningless distinction. And even if covering contraception ends up being cost-neutral, it's still unconstitutional to force religious organizations to offer such insurance plans.

The Church is free to offer whatever kind of compensation package is compatible with its sincerely held religious beliefs, and individuals who don't like it are free to find employment elsewhere.

It is much cheaper for the insurance companies to pay for birth control than unplanned pregnancies and that is the reason they aren't complaining.

If covering contraceptives truly saves insurance companies money, then a federal mandate would never have been necessary.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Your question is not fair.

This isn't buying a tv or car. You can go through life without using either but it is just about impossible to go through life without using healthcare. Try again. The closest thing is car insurance (which you are mandated to have minimum coverage) and before you say I don't have to buy it if I don't drive. Well you can stop buying health insurance when you die and there is no risk of you needing to go to a doctor which is the closest comparison. Sorry almost everyone (well practically everone and while I have no statistic on this, I would like for you to produce a statistic that says the opposite) will use healthcare in their life and most people frequently.

His question is not only fair, but extremely perceptive. If you listened to the arguments before the Supreme Court on this subject, you'd know that the Justices are likely to strike down the individual mandate precisely because Congress doesn't have the power to force people to buy a product.

 

[ACamp1900]

Your question is not fair.

This isn't buying a tv or car. You can go through life without using either but it is just about impossible to go through life without using healthcare.

This is not true at all...

 

[Bluto]

You don't have to own a car, or a home.

(And that is state, not federal)

Yeah, that same argument was made in the Supreme Court hearings. You are correct that I choose to enter the market place of home ownership or car ownership and I am required to purchase insurance. Justice Sotomayor made the point however, that like it or not we are all in the healthcare marketplace (for instance people can not be denied care when the show up at an emergency room) therefore making the case for the insurance mandate. Personally I think a socialized system makes way more sense for businesses (lower costs) , religious institutions (eliminates conflicts) and the average person (easier access to primary care). Oh yeah, I believe FEMA does require home owners to carry specific policies based on flood plain data and furthermore....Golson should start.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Your question is not fair.

This isn't buying a tv or car. You can go through life without using either but it is just about impossible to go through life without using healthcare. Try again. The closest thing is car insurance (which you are mandated to have minimum coverage) and before you say I don't have to buy it if I don't drive. Well you can stop buying health insurance when you die and there is no risk of you needing to go to a doctor which is the closest comparison. Sorry almost everyone (well practically everone and while I have no statistic on this, I would like for you to produce a statistic that says the opposite) will use healthcare in their life and most people frequently.

I hardly see how it is an unfair question, it is a true and difficult question.

You can most certainly go through life without health insurance, you may not live as long but it is a choice you can make. Studies show people with pets live longer, should we force all citizens to buy a puppy or kitten?

Car insurance is mandated by states, and only applies to those owning a car. You are not forced to own a car and are free to choose to live within an area where you do not need to buy one.



If the federal government forces citizens to buy health insurance, a precedent has been set that they can force you to buy a good or service. Where does it end? Way to slippery of a slope.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Yeah, that same argument was made in the Supreme Court hearings. You are correct that I choose to enter the market place of home ownership or car ownership and I am required to purchase insurance. Justice Sotomayor made the point however, that like it or not we are all in the healthcare marketplace (for instance people can not be denied care when the show up at an emergency room) therefore making the case for the insurance mandate. Personally I think a socialized system makes way more sense for businesses (lower costs) , religious institutions (eliminates conflicts) and the average person (easier access to primary care). Oh yeah, I believe FEMA does require home owners to carry specific policies based on flood plain data.

Then don't live in a flood plain area!

 

[Rhode Irish]

His question is not only fair, but extremely perceptive. If you listened to the arguments before the Supreme Court on this subject, you'd know that the Justices are likely to strike down to individual mandate precisely because Congress doesn't have the power to force people to buy a product.

I think it is possible that they could strike it down because it is the most radically political court in the history of the country, but I think as a matter of objective constitutional jurisprudence they should not strike it down. I think it is constitutional under the commerce clause, and as I commented earlier I would apply strict scrutiny to legislation which invokes the commerce clause to "create commerce in order to regulate it," in the words of Justice Kennedy. As pkt pointed out, I think it is quite easy to draw a line with respect to this specific law that would make it clear that Congress does not have unlimited authority under the Commerce while not striking down the individual mandate.

 

[Bluto]

Rally I was simply providing the FEMA example as one of the Federal government regulating the insurance industry to answer the State vs. Federal question you had. I believe that was the crux of the argument for the Government... everyone is in the healthcare market, the federal government has the power to regulate that market and therefore require the individual mandate.

 

[pkt77242]

That was Obama's "compromise", which the Church has rejected as illusory. The cost of covering contraception gets passed on to the employer, so it's a meaningless distinction. And even if covering contraception ends up being cost-neutral, it's still unconstitutional to force religious organizations to offer such insurance plans.

The Church is free to offer whatever kind of compensation package is compatible with its sincerely held religious beliefs, and individuals who don't like it are free to find employment elsewhere.



If covering contraceptives truly saves insurance companies money, then a federal mandate would never have been necessary.

The insurance companies were pushing for this otherwise they would have started bitching about it. Contraception is normally about $50 a month but lets say it costs $100 a month. The average birth costs $8000, and that is saying nothing goes wrong. It takes over 6 years (closer to 7) of contraception to cover the cost of one birth and that is not including anything after the birth of the baby. Of course insurance companies want it. It saves them millions of dollars. The reason they wouldn't do this on their own is they didn't want the backlash. Now the government gets it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think it is possible that they could strike it down because it is the most radically political court in the history of the country, but I think as a matter of objective constitutional jurisprudence they should not strike it down. I think it is constitutional under the commerce clause, and as I commented earlier I would apply strict scrutiny to legislation which invokes the commerce clause to "create commerce in order to regulate it," in the words of Justice Kennedy. As pkt pointed out, I think it is quite easy to draw a line with respect to this specific law that would make it clear that Congress does not have unlimited authority under the Commerce while not striking down the individual mandate.

That was basically Verrilli's argument in defense of the mandate. And I suppose that's fine if you're comfortable with there being virtually no limit on the scope of the Federal government's power. I'm not comfortable with that.

In any case, pkt's claim that Rally's question is "unfair" is clearly not true, as that question cuts to the central issue of the mandate's constitutionality.

 

[Rhode Irish]

You guys are being obstinate with respect to ptk's point, honestly. You can go through life without having health insurance, but you cannot guarantee that you will go through life without needing medical care. Those two things aren't the same. If something happens to you and you need an ambulance ride to the ER and emergency surgery, followed by a medically necessary hospital stay, you get that whether you can pay for it or not. It could easily cost far more than a person can afford to pay.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I was simply providing the FEMA example as one of the Federal government regulating the insurance industry to answer the State vs. Federal question you had. I believe that was the crux of the argument for the Government... everyone is in the healthcare market, the federal government has the power to regulate that market and therefore require the individual mandate.

And I was simply showing how to avoid having to pay that insurance.


Technically the only ones in the health care market are those that HAVE health care. You cannot force citizens into a market in order to regulate it.