By the way, your post, good read!

Regards,

Perhaps no modern commercial enterprise directly affects so many persons in all walks of life as does the insurance business. Insurance touches the home, the family, and the occupation or the business of almost every persons in the United States. (U.S. v. Southeastern Underwriters Ass’n 322 U.S. 533(1944))

The Southeastern Underwriters Court’s description of the factual case for federal regulation of insurance current to 1940 could hardly be more consonant with Congress’ expanding federal regulation of health insurance in 2010.

This complaint of the constitutionality of the Health Care bil is also just a disingenuous argument and I’ll tell you why. Even the Holy Church of Regressives, the Federalist Society, has put out an issue paper on the subject acknowledging, “An ‘individual mandate’ to buy health insurance has been a component of most health care reform plans proposed(including republican plans) starting with Clinton in 1993…..during this lengthy period of spirited legal and policy disputes about health reform, the suggestion that the principal template for reform might be unconstitutional was NEVER HEARD until months into the congressional consideration of the current legislation.” Got that, in the 17 years we’ve been throwing around ideas about health care, no one ever had the temerity to argue this was illegal until the republicans started counting votes in 2009. That includes Bob Dole and many other Republicans who’ve endorsed ideas that are actually IN this bill. And I’m not even going to get into the specifics of the ‘inactivity’ claim violation of the commerce clause because this type of verbal gimmickry is not looked very highly upon in court, as I’m guessing we’ll soon see.

I’d also like to point out the fatal flaw in this argument about the mandate. One that really stops the argument at ground zero. Writen specifically into the bill, clearly and unequivocally, is a waiver to the states should they have conflicts with the bill. Specifically:

PART III—STATE FLEXIBILITY RELATING TO EXCHANGES

Sec. 1321. State flexibility in operation and enforcement of Exchanges and related requirements.
Sec. 1322. Federal program to assist establishment and operation of nonprofit, member-run health insurance issuers.
Sec. 1323. Community health insurance option.
Sec. 1324. Level playing field.

PART IV—STATE FLEXIBILITY TO ESTABLISH ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS

Sec. 1331. State flexibility to establish basic health programs for low-income individuals not eligible for Medicaid.
Sec. 1332. Waiver for State innovation.
Sec. 1333. Provisions relating to offering of plans in more than one State

The Bill clearly outline that States can pass their own laws, if they do not agree with the Federal bill. Oops…again, if you can meet the requirements of the waiver, you can negate the request for an individual mandate.

I’d also just like to finish with this, because I’m seeing this across the board from conservatives…….blatant hypocrisy…..and listen, I’m no democrat…..the tax the living heck out of everything and think the government needs to solve all our ills. .but this kind of thing really takes the cake and is just impossible to justify……For instance the Attorney General of Texas Greg Abbott, who is suing the Federal Government, was recently a strong proponent of mandating divorced parents to buy health insurance for their children. Read that again, Turns out, that Abbott strongly supported a law in Texas last year that requires divorced parents to purchase insurance for their kids, even if they prefer to pay for their medical expenses out of pocket.

Enough already. This bill certainly isn’t perfect, but it does give many more people access to health insurance, and contains many ideas that over the years were advocated by Republicans. Sheesh. You know, the Republicans have been in control of congress for 15 of the last 18 years and had the presidency for 8 of the last 10…….how’d things get so bad when they held all the cards for so long?

The most recent poll from Rasmussen survey was conducted one day earlier, had a deviation of +/-3 percent and told a very different story. And a Bloomberg poll the same day confirms the Rasmussen findings that only 4 out of 10 support the legislation after passage.

For evidence, just look at the emotional reaction question. We know Democrats account for 30% of the population, Republicans 20%, and Independents 50% of the population. Yet this poll claims 50% of adults are “Enthusiastic or Pleased” even though majorities of both Independents and Republicans are “Disappointed, Angry, or have No Opinion.” Now how can that be unless they included the “No Opinion” folks as being for the measure?

There is definitely some screwy things going on here.