If the mandates were ruled unconstitutional by the Supremes....where would that leave us?

I assume the rest of the bill would still be in place.

If so, wouldn't having the mandates be ruled unconstitutional actually be a GOOD thing?

Gawd I hope Obama is going yard with this. My ass hurts from getting let down -hard.

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
------------------------snip-----------------------
“If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?" CNSNews.com asked. "If so, what is that limit?”

Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker’s office entitled, “Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’” The press release states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971

Interestingly, Conyers cites a different...uuuhh...Non Existent part of the Constitution:

"...The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said that never before in the history of the United States has the federal government required any one to purchase any good or service. What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?”

Conyers said: “Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know -- I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know -- they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63182
-----------snip-----------------------

I'm looking forward to seeing what future administrations will "Mandate".
People who have no idea that $100 bucks can be a hard thing to come up with
at the end of the month can be pretty demanding!

Royalty prefers that Commoners speak only when spoken to.




Twelve Arrested by Homeland Security in Pelosi's Office
Singing and Chanting for Single Payer Health Care Lead to Arrests in Pelosi's Office
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/11/04/18627831.php
Single Payer health care plan advocates took direct action to get answers from Nancy Pelosi on November 3rd. Fifteen people occupied her San Francisco office, demanding to talk with the Speaker of the House, who was in DC at the time. Dan Bernal, Pelosi's District Director, refused to put Speaker Pelosi on the phone with the demonstrators to address the fact that key elements of Congress' final health care reform bill are missing. The demonstrators said Pelosi broke her promise to include the Kucinich amendment, that would allow states to enact their own single payer plans, in Congress' final health care bill.

"We deserve to know why she has turned her back on working people nationwide," said a spokesperson for CSEA (California School Employees' Association) whose members buoyed the protest. Two CSEA representatives were arrested along with ten others when they refused to leave the building after three hours of occupying Pelosi's office. Also participating in the protest both inside and outside the building were members of CARA (California Alliance of Retired Americans), the San Francisco Gray Panthers, and other groups advocating direct action to achieve a single payer health care plan.

About 100 demonstrators chanted loudly in front of the building. Meanwhile, protesters inside Pelosi's office lifted their cell phones to hear the supporters on the outside, and joined in the chants. That was cause enough for Pelosi's District Director to have those remaining in the office arrested. According to Dan Hodges, Chair of Health Care for All-California, chanting and singing was extended to mean that the demonstrators had disobeyed police officers. Hodges said, "Because Bernal was too cowardly to file an official complaint, an elaborate charade was worked out by Bernal, building management and the Federal Protection Service," and the branch of US Homeland Security made the arrests.

The only way a public system...or one that prohibits insurance companies from cherry picking who they'll cover for maximum profit is by having a large pool of healthy people contributing to the system to keep it solvent. It's similar to social security...we're paying now so that we will be able to collect later. Without a large pool of premium payers, be it public or private, the system will go into the red and in a hurry and the only way to assure there is that steady flow of money to keep the system going is through the mandate. Remove the mandate and you'll have to find another way to finance the system...or watch services cut and people turned away from treatment (back to where we are now).

Here's the rub...to have a truly universal system, the costs have to be spread universally as well. The HIR didn't really address the many reasons healthcare costs have soared...it's not just insurance (that's a byproduct in many ways) and eventually they will have to be dealt with or not only this program but medicare could go bust or create massive defecits to keep going. Even so, mandates would still be required...hopefully at a lower rate. Seems there are some who still haven't realized that the only way a universal system works is if there's a large resevoir of participants...not just soaking the rich (trust me, we can use their money for many other needs) but spread to each and every one of us. There is no free lunch.

A mandate prevents people from gaming the system by waiting to get sick to buy coverage since insurance companies will be forced to insure people regardless of their condition. Theoretically you could wait until you were diagnosed with heart disease and need to have open heart surgery before purchasing coverage.

It would be akin to buying home insurance as your home was on fire.

I'd prefer to say that many aren't informed as to how insurance and our current healthcare system operates. They see all the bad and don't look closer to see how making radical changes could make things worse not better. Best of intentions, but missing many key elements to follow what is a very complex issue. Not that I'm a fan of many things that happened inside the beltway over the past year, but I don't see this bill as a total sell-out to the corporates and that there are many Congresscritters who did put their careers on the line on this vote...it better work.

People seem to forget that one of the biggest expenses right now are the many uninsured who end up at ERs in bad condition and require expensive care. A universal system will cut down on that problem as well as allow millions to get preventative care...the real key to a healthy and prosperous nation. The money has to come from somewhere...and it's all of us who share this burden. Be it a public or private provider, health care...especially end-of-life needs is expensive and the more people who pay into the system, the more affordable this access will be to all. Now there are ways to cut costs but that's for another day.

Cheers...

But the only way to make it "affordable" for everyone is to have such burden spread such that the personal contribution is proportional to one's income (and no, shell games with subsidies do not really accomplish this). If someone makes $100 million a year in income, their contribution should be *at least* 1000 times higher than if someone makes $100 K a year, if not even higher with a marginal rate that steps up.

Forcing people into an unfair system that puts a larger burden on the lower classes isn't going to promote the overall welfare of the country as effectively, and may even suppress it depending on just how unfair the system is that people are being forced into. That is the problem with forcing people to purchase products privately that have a maximum ceiling in cost; the other funds for subsidies will not be raised in such a way that is proportional to the wealth people are accumulating.

That's why I strongly supported a public option however forcing insurance companies to insure everybody regardless of their condition without a mandate invites people to game the system.

And the insurers are winning. And besides, people are still going to be out there "gaming" by getting bronze plans and upgrading to platinum when they need it.

Thats not a reasonable excuse for forcing people into an unfair system. First, they should have ensured the system distributes the burden in a fair manner and promotes absolute access to care equally across the entire population (separating quality of care from income levels). Then you mandate. Not the ass backwards other way

Yes, the burden needs to be universal and proportional...just as our progressive tax system is...those with the greatest ability to pay will pay more. It will be their contributions that go to subsidize the coverage for those who aren't as fortunate...and this would be the case in a public or private system. Someone with the means will prefer a "Cadillac plan" (which will be taxed at a higher rate) than basic coverage...and thus they will be paying more.

When discussing single payer I always ask from where will the government get the thousands of people to form such a large undertaking and how long and how expensive would it be to get it up and running...and how much more efficient would it be over the current system. I get lots of hate toward private insurers (and I'm no fan of them either) but seems that part of the equation hasn't been thought through...and we risk going from one gatekeeper at an insurance company to another...a government beaurucrat. I'd prefer the happy medium.

If it's not paid through premiums, then it will be assessed as part of one's income taxes or deducted from payroll...but to make the current system work more efficiently and open it to the largest number of people. Right now our government is not equipped to handle such a task and with massive defecits is in no real position to go in that direction right now. Bring troops home and reduce defense spending and raise tax rates on the top earners is well and good, but for many, their health problems can't wait...thus the need to make the best of the existing system.

I don't see this as all black and white. We've seen with mandatory auto insurance laws it opened the doors to a new tier of competition...smaller, "cut-rate" companies that have, if not lowered premium prices, have kept them in check and competitive. Also with the subsidies and limits on what can be deducted for profits, while mandated, we will see a different insurance situation as time goes by. If this was such a sell-out, why did the Chamber of Commerce and AHIP spend so much not only to destroy the bill but now to go after those who supported it?

and used that issue to smack Hillary around quite a bit,
(in fact, it was one of the only real differences)

was he lying-
or did he just not do enough due diligence?

It has to be one or the other, if what you say is true.

And there has never been a "mandatory insurance law" from the feds before.

There is no precedent. None. Zero. Zip. Nada

There's a big difference between campaigning and governing...something the rushpublicans failed to comprehend that led to their fall from power. Add to that the economic mess this country ended up as between the primaries and the general election and then afterwards...President Obama walked into a massive mess that have had a major impact on everything this Administration is doing...a tight wire act of trying to make changes without collapsing a corrupt and inept system.

In my state there's a mandatory insurance law...that issue has been beaten to death here. Then there's the mandate of social security that, while not going to a private entity, ends up with them...the government doesn't own hospitals (except the VA...for the few who've earned that care).

I imagine you support single payer...without a mandate, how would that system be able to function? How long would it take for such a system to be up and running and what do we do in the meantime?

Campaign promises are always taken with a the condition that what generates votes and what is doable in a dysfunctional government are two things. Personally, I'm still amazed any bill ever passed...at least there's something to work from now that can be and will be revised.

And Medicare would be dead, too.

However the mandate's detractors would argue Medicare and Social Security are public systems and in this instance you are being compelled to but something from a private corporation. They would also argue that you don't have to buy auto insurance unless you want to drive a car.

There are no federal laws on mandating insurance for drivers.

The US Constitution restricts the federal govt not the states.

That would be amazing even for this court.

Paraphrasing it says that if any portion of the bill is found to be Unconstitutional that portion is severed from the bill and rest of bill stands.

Little do Republicans realize the quandary they put themselves in if mandates are found to be Unconstitutional. Repealing rest of HCR would require 60 votes (which they don't even come close to having).

So rest of bill would stand and mandates would go away which would kill insurance companies and likely require a public option.