Has the Health Care overhaul hit an unconstitutional snag?

link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/HXJVEI/9... Asked by rhine44 12 months ago Similar questions: Health Care overhaul hit unconstitutional snag Politics & Law > Issues.

Similar questions: Health Care overhaul hit unconstitutional snag.

Well, we'll see what the Supreme Court says.

Well, everybody was expecting it to go to the Supreme Court anyway. This ruling doesn't have any real effect until 2014, when the law comes into force. So it's not so much a "snag" as a step on the way to the Supreme Court.

Other district court judges have ruled in favor of it, which makes it perfect Supreme Court fodder. Conceivably without that the Supremes might have denied cert on it, but that seems pretty unlikely with 6 out of 9 justices being Republican appointees, and at least 4 of them reliable votes on that regard. You only need 4 to grant cert.

But even without that, there's a good chance that even justices in favor of the law would grant cert just to get a chance to rule on it. As usual, it'll come down to what Justice Kennedy decides, unless somebody undergoes an unexpected health issue.

Definitely. The Commerce Clause does not authorize the Congress to require Interstate Commerce.

Social Security and Medicare are taxes. We pay money to Uncle Sam. Obamacare is not a tax, since the money does not go to the government.

Definitely. The Commerce Clause does not authorize the Congress to require Interstate Commerce. The Healthcare bill does not "require" interstate commerce.It's choice.

Therefore, you statement is not valid. And I have no idea what this "Obamacare" you all seem so fond of mouthing is. There is no such thing - except in the minds of the tea party.

You guys do so love your little catchy phrases. The bill would reform the individual health insurance market by allowing individuals and families who reside in one state to buy a more affordable health insurance plan domiciled or licensed in another state. Likewise, health insurance plans would be able to sell their policies to individuals and families in every state of the union, just as other companies do in the sale of a wide variety of goods and services in every other sector of the economy.

The legislation carefully balances the interests of the states where health insurance is bought and sold. States where health insurers are licensed to sell their plans retain the primary authority to regulate the health insurance product. These rules usually govern such items as payment of premiums, claims processing, and appeals and grievances.

The bill also establishes a federal floor for fiscal solvency requirements, based on National Association of Insurance Commissioners standards, for plans competing in interstate commerce. When health plans are sold to residents across state lines, the purchasers would be entitled to their state's rules enforcing consumer protection, such as its fraud and abuse laws, rules governing unfair claims, or financial or solvency protections. Moreover, under the terms of the bill, any insurer who sells in another state would still be subject to that state's premium taxes and any assessments for state high-risk pools, which cover costly or uninsurable persons.

A key advantage of the legislation is that it would not preempt, undermine, or override innovative state health care reforms; it would instead give ordinary Americans greater access to different types of health care coverage. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/07/The-Health-Care-Choice-Act-Eliminating-Barriers-to-Personal-Freedom-and-Market-Competition org/Research/Reports/2006/07/The-Health-Care-Choice-Act-Eliminating-Barriers-to-Personal-Freedom-and-Market-Competition.

MANY 3rd world countries--DO....THAT'S WHY they have a vast "peasant class"...

More republican obstructionism. Cake, anyone? .

We will see. It is on the road to the USSC where that question will be answered.

I see it has hit a new low in popularity among Americans. 52% of Americans are against it and 43% are for it. More also continue to “strongly” oppose the law than to strongly support it, 37 percent to 22 percent.

blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/12/new... html.

No problem if you ask Nancy Pelosi. Her response to a question about the Constitutionality of the bill was:“Are you serious? Are you serious?”cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-when-... com/news/article/flashback-when-asked-where-constitution.

The current law passed by the dems and BHO doesn't allow people to buy insurance from another state. A new bill introduced by two Republicans is trying to change that. It will be interesting to see if the dems and BHO go along with it since it isn't their idea.

heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/07/Th... org/Research/Reports/2006/07/The-Health-Care-Choice-Act-Eliminating-Barriers-to-Personal-Freedom-and-Market-Competition.

We all pay out for social security and Medicare. Html.

Nobody can get a heart attack from it?" "Ok... Let's put partisan politics aside and talk about issues - Health Care" "List these issues in the order of importance to you. 1. Iraqi War 2.

Economy 3. Health Care 4. Immigration 5.

Environment" "Prop 8 was ruled by a Federal Judge to be unconstitutional today. Those of you that care know what that is............

Repubs repeated false info about federal health care law.

How do you feel about the new health-care legislation that would "hit all but the smallest businesses.

Ok... Let's put partisan politics aside and talk about issues - Health Care.

List these issues in the order of importance to you. 1. Iraqi War 2.

Economy 3. Health Care 4. Immigration 5.Environment.

Prop 8 was ruled by a Federal Judge to be unconstitutional today. Those of you that care know what that is............

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.