Obamacare defenders taken by surprise

Even fans of Obamacare are admitting how poorly the administration lawyers handled the argument before the Supreme Court.  It is as if they didn’t anticipate the opposing arguments, much less prepare an answer for them.  It is as if they didn’t even conceive of how anyone could disagree with the goodness of the law.  From Rand Simberg (links to the quotes are in the linked article):

Having seen the transcripts of Tuesday’s hearing before the Supreme Court of the United States, I can only conclude that . . .testing their arguments against those of their political opponents. . .not only never occurred to the solicitor general or his defenders in the media, but that the very notion that their arguments had any flaws never crossed their minds.

In fact, even Mother Jones said that it was a judicial disaster for the government:

“Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court.

…Justice Samuel Alito asked the same question later. “Could you just -— before you move on, could you express your limiting principle as succinctly as you possibly can?” Verrilli turned to precedent again. “It’s very much like Wickard in that respect, it’s very much like Raich in that respect,” Verrilli said, pointing to two previous Supreme Court opinions liberals have held up to defend the individual mandate. Where the lawyers challenging the mandate invoked the Federalist Papers and the framers of the Constitution, Verrilli offered jargon and political talking points. If the law is upheld, it will be in spite of Verrilli’s performance, not because of it.”

The months leading up to the arguments made it clear that the government would face this obvious question. The law’s defenders knew that they had to find a simple way of answering it so that its argument didn’t leave the federal government with unlimited power. That is, Obamacare defenders would have to explain to the justices why allowing the government to compel individuals to buy insurance did not mean that the government could make individuals buy anything -— (say, broccoli or health club memberships, both of which Scalia mentioned). Verrilli was unable to do so concisely, leaving the Democratic appointees on the court to throw him life lines, all of which a flailing Verrilli failed to grasp.

It apparently never occurred to him that he might be challenged on these issues. Why was he so unprepared?

For months we’ve been hearing from the usual suspects in the MSM about how ludicrous was the notion that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to compel someone to purchase a product, as though proponents of the proposition were advocating the legitimacy of slavery, or the notion that the government couldn’t prevent someone from growing wheat for their own use on their own land, or that it couldn’t prevent an individual from growing marijuana to treat her own cancer.

As evidence for their scoffing, they pointed out how that great constitutional scholar Nancy Pelosi was incredulous at the notion that there could possibly be an issue with it, or the more honest Democrat congressman (who somehow inexplicably later lost his election) who didn’t even think that it mattered. They also pointed out the sophisticated legal argument that it must be constitutional, otherwise its proponents would have actually put forth legal arguments supporting the case:

“That the law is constitutional is best illustrated by the fact that — until recently — the Obama administration expended almost no energy defending it.”

Could there be a more airtight defense? Perhaps, if one had a sieve.

All of this is evidence of the media/academic cocoon in which so many of these commentators live. It is a world in which it is unimaginable that Wickard v. Filburn may have been wrongly decided, in which there may actually be limits to federal power. It is unimaginable that the great solons on the Hill — Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank — could possibly write a bill which might actually be unconstitutional despite its hundreds of pages that not one person read, and that we couldn’t possibly know what was in it until they passed it.

As a specific example of how completely gobsmacked they were, read “legal analyst” Jeffrey Toobin’s reaction to the hearing:

‘“This law looks like it’s going to be struck down,” he said. “I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong.”’

Shocking, Jeffrey, we know. Just shocking.

Shocking, that is, to anyone completely unfamiliar with the founding document and the intent of the Founders. Sadly, this includes most people in the traditional media, on which too many continue to rely for their analysis. The White House could have avoided, or at least mitigated, this disaster by hiring the smartest opponents of the law to come in and do a moot court exercise against them, in order to prepare their advocate in advance. But, whether due to arrogance, incompetence, or both, it did not.

via PJ Media » The White House/Media Cocoon on ObamaCare.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Michael B.

    Here would be my question: What problem with new health care system would you have that you wouldn’t have with the old system? How can you support free health care for people over 65 but not extending that coverage to others? Why should a person under 65 have to pay for insurance that he himself can’t get?

  • Michael B.

    Here would be my question: What problem with new health care system would you have that you wouldn’t have with the old system? How can you support free health care for people over 65 but not extending that coverage to others? Why should a person under 65 have to pay for insurance that he himself can’t get?

  • Kirk

    @Michael,

    I think you raise good questions, because it is, in principle, more or less the same. Knowing what little I do know, it seems that the key difference between medicare/medicade and the individual mandate is the means. The former is a tax, and therefore within the powers of the federal government while the latter is the forced purchase of a product. I think that’s where the legal dividing line is.

  • Kirk

    @Michael,

    I think you raise good questions, because it is, in principle, more or less the same. Knowing what little I do know, it seems that the key difference between medicare/medicade and the individual mandate is the means. The former is a tax, and therefore within the powers of the federal government while the latter is the forced purchase of a product. I think that’s where the legal dividing line is.

  • SKPeterson

    And I would argue that Medicare/Medicaid are quite problematic economically, politically and morally, as well. I would be for complete and total repeal of both programs at the federal level. If states want to engage in this, then let them, but none should be compelled.

  • SKPeterson

    And I would argue that Medicare/Medicaid are quite problematic economically, politically and morally, as well. I would be for complete and total repeal of both programs at the federal level. If states want to engage in this, then let them, but none should be compelled.

  • rlewer

    And now Obama (the Constitutional Lawyer?) is actually saying that the Supreme Court does not have the right to declare a law unconstitutional. Reasoning: The Congress was elected and the Supreme Court was not. Wow!

  • rlewer

    And now Obama (the Constitutional Lawyer?) is actually saying that the Supreme Court does not have the right to declare a law unconstitutional. Reasoning: The Congress was elected and the Supreme Court was not. Wow!

  • Tom Hering

    I think these justices, being great defenders of the Constitution, will uphold the mandate – with the proviso that patients may be strip-searched before entering the public healthcare system.

  • Tom Hering

    I think these justices, being great defenders of the Constitution, will uphold the mandate – with the proviso that patients may be strip-searched before entering the public healthcare system.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    It would have been better to just expand Medicaid. The program is already in place etc. Government compelling or coercing people to enter into a contract is a terrible mechanism and upholding it a bad precedent.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    It would have been better to just expand Medicaid. The program is already in place etc. Government compelling or coercing people to enter into a contract is a terrible mechanism and upholding it a bad precedent.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The biggest problem with the health care act is that it funnels money to insurers not providers. It will guarantee that you have to deal with the insurance company and all their crazy rules including being denied care, which is why even a government bureaucrazy single payer is better than the new health care law.

    LA Times has a great article on how insurance companies are a big part of the problem.

    http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-lopez-erfollowup-20120401,0,6799675.column

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The biggest problem with the health care act is that it funnels money to insurers not providers. It will guarantee that you have to deal with the insurance company and all their crazy rules including being denied care, which is why even a government bureaucrazy single payer is better than the new health care law.

    LA Times has a great article on how insurance companies are a big part of the problem.

    http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-lopez-erfollowup-20120401,0,6799675.column

  • Jerry

    I would be greatly surprised if the public hearings have anything to do with the final decisions. This is a matter more significant than can be decided by a few hours of testimony. In spite of what people may think about the independence of the Supreme Court from the political system, it’s a myth. Justice Kagen did not recuse herself because the very reason she was placed on the Court was for this vote. If the Obama representative made a fool of himself, that’s his problem but will not affect the outcome.

    Justice Kennedy is probably the sole deciding vote, and he probably made up his mind two years ago…

  • Jerry

    I would be greatly surprised if the public hearings have anything to do with the final decisions. This is a matter more significant than can be decided by a few hours of testimony. In spite of what people may think about the independence of the Supreme Court from the political system, it’s a myth. Justice Kagen did not recuse herself because the very reason she was placed on the Court was for this vote. If the Obama representative made a fool of himself, that’s his problem but will not affect the outcome.

    Justice Kennedy is probably the sole deciding vote, and he probably made up his mind two years ago…

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @1

    “How can you support free health care for people over 65 but not extending that coverage to others?”

    First, it isn’t free. It is paid for by taxes.

    Second, health insurance is not health care. It is enrollment in a program where someone else decides what health care you will and will not get and they negotiate with the provider for the price and the services. The patient enrolled in the program pays for it through premiums, or in the case of the health care act, a portion of can be paid for by the gov’t if you are lower income.

    Third, we already have laws that make sure everyone gets emergency care. Providers charge all different prices including lower prices for the uninsured. And the providers do cost shifting so that people with better insurance pay more for the same services.

    Finally, the main problem with the health care industry is that it has been really hard to charge young healthy people (who don’t use much service) high premiums because they can just choose not to buy it. Insurance companies can make more money if the government forces those people to buy their products.

    When you consider that the big winners are the insurers, you have to wonder why exactly some people think it is such a great deal.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @1

    “How can you support free health care for people over 65 but not extending that coverage to others?”

    First, it isn’t free. It is paid for by taxes.

    Second, health insurance is not health care. It is enrollment in a program where someone else decides what health care you will and will not get and they negotiate with the provider for the price and the services. The patient enrolled in the program pays for it through premiums, or in the case of the health care act, a portion of can be paid for by the gov’t if you are lower income.

    Third, we already have laws that make sure everyone gets emergency care. Providers charge all different prices including lower prices for the uninsured. And the providers do cost shifting so that people with better insurance pay more for the same services.

    Finally, the main problem with the health care industry is that it has been really hard to charge young healthy people (who don’t use much service) high premiums because they can just choose not to buy it. Insurance companies can make more money if the government forces those people to buy their products.

    When you consider that the big winners are the insurers, you have to wonder why exactly some people think it is such a great deal.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Don’t conflate issues. Our health care system, with or without Obamacare, is a screwed up mess of opaque rules, convoluted incentives and economic insanity. But that wasn’t the issue before the Court. To ask the Court to solve that problem would be asking them to legislate – which isn’t in their job description (and yes, I know that courts have legislated from the bench for all intents and purposes before). The issue before the Court – and the only issue before the Court – is the constitutionality of the ACA. If they rule against it – we are in the same mess we were before. If they don’t – we have a different mess (and in my opinion, a bigger one).

    But as to the topic of the post, just a classic case of groupthink. Democrats aren’t the only ones susceptible to this, we all are in some ways. They just couldn’t get out of their own way to look at the possibility that maybe a 2,700 page mess of a piece of legislation wasn’t the best approach. And to not consider seriously the possibility that an individual mandate might be unconstitutional (and to not include a severability clause) is just brain dead.

    The reasoning that I have seen from the defenders of the law (we had to do something! Those evil insurance companies!) is a bit like Republicans (of which I am one) looking at the bloody mess that Iraq was and thinking that invading Iran or Syria is the way to make it better. There are very few things that are so bad that ill-advised action by government can’t make it worse.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Don’t conflate issues. Our health care system, with or without Obamacare, is a screwed up mess of opaque rules, convoluted incentives and economic insanity. But that wasn’t the issue before the Court. To ask the Court to solve that problem would be asking them to legislate – which isn’t in their job description (and yes, I know that courts have legislated from the bench for all intents and purposes before). The issue before the Court – and the only issue before the Court – is the constitutionality of the ACA. If they rule against it – we are in the same mess we were before. If they don’t – we have a different mess (and in my opinion, a bigger one).

    But as to the topic of the post, just a classic case of groupthink. Democrats aren’t the only ones susceptible to this, we all are in some ways. They just couldn’t get out of their own way to look at the possibility that maybe a 2,700 page mess of a piece of legislation wasn’t the best approach. And to not consider seriously the possibility that an individual mandate might be unconstitutional (and to not include a severability clause) is just brain dead.

    The reasoning that I have seen from the defenders of the law (we had to do something! Those evil insurance companies!) is a bit like Republicans (of which I am one) looking at the bloody mess that Iraq was and thinking that invading Iran or Syria is the way to make it better. There are very few things that are so bad that ill-advised action by government can’t make it worse.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Justice Kennedy is probably the sole deciding vote, and he probably made up his mind two years ago…”

    Okay, what about Sotomayor? I wonder if she will be influenced by her fellow Catholics on the court.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Justice Kennedy is probably the sole deciding vote, and he probably made up his mind two years ago…”

    Okay, what about Sotomayor? I wonder if she will be influenced by her fellow Catholics on the court.

  • –helen

    sg @ 9
    Providers charge all different prices including lower prices for the uninsured.

    Really? I was uninsured for five years.
    I remember that an office visit immediately cost one third more than it had under insurance. God was gracious and I did not need anything major during those five years or for some time after, when I had acquired a better job with insurance.

  • –helen

    sg @ 9
    Providers charge all different prices including lower prices for the uninsured.

    Really? I was uninsured for five years.
    I remember that an office visit immediately cost one third more than it had under insurance. God was gracious and I did not need anything major during those five years or for some time after, when I had acquired a better job with insurance.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Sounds pretty crappy, Helen. Are you saying your own personal physician charged you more than he charged the insurance company? I was without insurance for about a week and took one of the kids in to the doctor that week. She charged me less as a cash patient.

    Obviously, providers don’t have to charge less for their cash patients. However, your statement still agrees that providers charge all different fees.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Sounds pretty crappy, Helen. Are you saying your own personal physician charged you more than he charged the insurance company? I was without insurance for about a week and took one of the kids in to the doctor that week. She charged me less as a cash patient.

    Obviously, providers don’t have to charge less for their cash patients. However, your statement still agrees that providers charge all different fees.

  • DonS

    Helen @ 12: typically, practitioners will discount 40-50% for cash patients. If your doctor won’t do that, find another one.

    It’s amusing that Obama found occasion to try to intimidate the “unelected” Court yesterday, when usually it is his position, and those on the left that we need to respect the Courts and the process when they are imposing policies favored by the left by fiat. Conflating the Court’s rightful role of striking down unconstitutional laws with judicial activism, where the Court actually creates new laws in light of new “interpretations” of the Constitution is an absurdity. And his notion that somehow Obamacare passed Congress by a “large majority” is laughable, given the seven vote margin by which it passed, without Republican support, in a House which at the time had a 35 seat Democratic majority, and then only after days and nights of back room maneuvering and arm twisting.

  • DonS

    Helen @ 12: typically, practitioners will discount 40-50% for cash patients. If your doctor won’t do that, find another one.

    It’s amusing that Obama found occasion to try to intimidate the “unelected” Court yesterday, when usually it is his position, and those on the left that we need to respect the Courts and the process when they are imposing policies favored by the left by fiat. Conflating the Court’s rightful role of striking down unconstitutional laws with judicial activism, where the Court actually creates new laws in light of new “interpretations” of the Constitution is an absurdity. And his notion that somehow Obamacare passed Congress by a “large majority” is laughable, given the seven vote margin by which it passed, without Republican support, in a House which at the time had a 35 seat Democratic majority, and then only after days and nights of back room maneuvering and arm twisting.

  • SKPeterson

    DonS – But didn’t you see that the law is Constitutional because Congress didn’t read the language contained in the bill? That is an absolutely airtight legal defense. I mean, what part of Constitutionality do you not understand?

  • SKPeterson

    DonS – But didn’t you see that the law is Constitutional because Congress didn’t read the language contained in the bill? That is an absolutely airtight legal defense. I mean, what part of Constitutionality do you not understand?

  • Jerry

    sg @11 Justice Sotomayor did ask some questions that indicated she wasn’t totally on the ObamaCare side of the issue. However, Nancy Pelosi is also Catholic so I can see where that may not have anything to do with her position…Justice Sotomayor’s brother is an established pediatric pulmonary specialist…

  • Jerry

    sg @11 Justice Sotomayor did ask some questions that indicated she wasn’t totally on the ObamaCare side of the issue. However, Nancy Pelosi is also Catholic so I can see where that may not have anything to do with her position…Justice Sotomayor’s brother is an established pediatric pulmonary specialist…

  • Joe

    this case will turn on one man’s answer to a single (multiple part) question:

    The man is Anthony Kennedy and the question is “is the healthcare market fundamentally different from every other market and is it fundamentally different in a way that makes it acceptable for the gov’t to coerce participation in a specific segment of that market?”

    How Kennedy answers this question will determine whether or not the law stands.

  • Joe

    this case will turn on one man’s answer to a single (multiple part) question:

    The man is Anthony Kennedy and the question is “is the healthcare market fundamentally different from every other market and is it fundamentally different in a way that makes it acceptable for the gov’t to coerce participation in a specific segment of that market?”

    How Kennedy answers this question will determine whether or not the law stands.

  • DonS

    Joe @ 17: That is probably correct.

    A subtext of this question is whether, assuming the answer is yes, the government’s ability to coerce is limited to the least restrictive means for accomplishing its purpose. In other words, once this threshold of permitting the government to mandate participation in the health care market, by requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance policies, are there limits on this mandate, eg, is it limited to mandate a basic catastrophic policy, or is the government now free to require the policies to include expensive mandated benefits, with no co-pays or deductibles, as it has done?

    My thought is that the Court will likely strike down the mandate on this narrow basis, leaving open the question of whether any such mandate, if it were narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling governmental purpose in the least restrictive way reasonably possible, would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause. This is the easy out — the fact that not only did the government mandate purchase of insurance, but it fundamentally changed the nature of the insurance coverage available in a sweeping way. By striking it down, and the rest of the law with it, on the basis of non-severability, it will preclude the necessity of deciding all of the other issues coming its way related to mandated benefits, religious rights under the First Amendment, etc.

  • DonS

    Joe @ 17: That is probably correct.

    A subtext of this question is whether, assuming the answer is yes, the government’s ability to coerce is limited to the least restrictive means for accomplishing its purpose. In other words, once this threshold of permitting the government to mandate participation in the health care market, by requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance policies, are there limits on this mandate, eg, is it limited to mandate a basic catastrophic policy, or is the government now free to require the policies to include expensive mandated benefits, with no co-pays or deductibles, as it has done?

    My thought is that the Court will likely strike down the mandate on this narrow basis, leaving open the question of whether any such mandate, if it were narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling governmental purpose in the least restrictive way reasonably possible, would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause. This is the easy out — the fact that not only did the government mandate purchase of insurance, but it fundamentally changed the nature of the insurance coverage available in a sweeping way. By striking it down, and the rest of the law with it, on the basis of non-severability, it will preclude the necessity of deciding all of the other issues coming its way related to mandated benefits, religious rights under the First Amendment, etc.

  • SKPeterson

    If it passes based upon such legal reasoning, what is to prevent the government from ordering every person to purchase a hand gun? The government does have a compelling interest in preserving the 2nd Amendment. We should also all be compelled to subscribe to the local newspaper since that will preserve the important 1st Amendment. And everyone is probably going to have to go out to eat at least once per week – that will ensure economic growth in the service sector of the economy.

  • SKPeterson

    If it passes based upon such legal reasoning, what is to prevent the government from ordering every person to purchase a hand gun? The government does have a compelling interest in preserving the 2nd Amendment. We should also all be compelled to subscribe to the local newspaper since that will preserve the important 1st Amendment. And everyone is probably going to have to go out to eat at least once per week – that will ensure economic growth in the service sector of the economy.

  • DonS

    Actually, SKP, if the Court upholds the mandate, it will attempt to narrowly tailor the opinion to identify the healthcare market as particularly unique, because sooner or later just about everyone participates in it. Will this work? Probably not. That kind of limiting language, based on facts beyond which are before the court, is dicta only. All of a sudden, the government will be asked to mandate all kinds of things of forced activity under its Commerce Clause power, under the rationale of the uniqueness of the market in which the desired mandated activity resides. These things are inevitable, which is how we have expanded the federal government’s power to its current monstrous point.

  • DonS

    Actually, SKP, if the Court upholds the mandate, it will attempt to narrowly tailor the opinion to identify the healthcare market as particularly unique, because sooner or later just about everyone participates in it. Will this work? Probably not. That kind of limiting language, based on facts beyond which are before the court, is dicta only. All of a sudden, the government will be asked to mandate all kinds of things of forced activity under its Commerce Clause power, under the rationale of the uniqueness of the market in which the desired mandated activity resides. These things are inevitable, which is how we have expanded the federal government’s power to its current monstrous point.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    I like Michael’s question in comment #1; and given that Medicare currently costs about 10 x what LBJ and the bill’s author’s promised, suffice it that I think that the sooner it is ended, the better. Let’s do it gracefully so we don’t let our seniors hang out to dry, but to claim it hasn’t been a debacle is simply to deny reality.

    And given the current Medicare unfunded liability–something like fifty trillion dollars and counting–our choice is not if we will end Medicare (and Obamacare), but rather when, and whether we will do so marginally gracefully, or whether it will be a calamity.

    That said, Michael does raise the good question of why it’s apparently OK for government to nationalize an industry (e.g. retirement medicine), but not to compel others in the private sector. I think both are equally repulsive, to be honest.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    I like Michael’s question in comment #1; and given that Medicare currently costs about 10 x what LBJ and the bill’s author’s promised, suffice it that I think that the sooner it is ended, the better. Let’s do it gracefully so we don’t let our seniors hang out to dry, but to claim it hasn’t been a debacle is simply to deny reality.

    And given the current Medicare unfunded liability–something like fifty trillion dollars and counting–our choice is not if we will end Medicare (and Obamacare), but rather when, and whether we will do so marginally gracefully, or whether it will be a calamity.

    That said, Michael does raise the good question of why it’s apparently OK for government to nationalize an industry (e.g. retirement medicine), but not to compel others in the private sector. I think both are equally repulsive, to be honest.

  • Grace

    Individuals are required by law pay for auto insurance. In the same way, they should be required to pay for health insurance.

    One can make the argument that the two are not the same, but they are. Those who have accidents, DUI’s, are required to pay more for insurance, IF they choose to drive their car/truck. In the same way, those who abuse their health, be it drugs, smoking, alcohol and obesity should be made to pay MORE for health insurance – as they are most likely to have many more health problems, because of their choices.

    Cigarettes cost more than 5 dollars a pack, most who smoke, smoke more than one pack a day. That comes to a minimum of 150.00 per month for one pack a day. The money could easily be spent for health insurance

    Those who eat to excess, consume more food than they need. They too can save money, just by cutting their food consumption. The money they save can be spent on health insurance.

    These ideas may seem elementary, however, doctors see patient after patient who indulge themselves, in one way or another.

    Auto insurance and health insurance are both important, more important then most of what people spend their discretionary income on.

  • Grace

    Individuals are required by law pay for auto insurance. In the same way, they should be required to pay for health insurance.

    One can make the argument that the two are not the same, but they are. Those who have accidents, DUI’s, are required to pay more for insurance, IF they choose to drive their car/truck. In the same way, those who abuse their health, be it drugs, smoking, alcohol and obesity should be made to pay MORE for health insurance – as they are most likely to have many more health problems, because of their choices.

    Cigarettes cost more than 5 dollars a pack, most who smoke, smoke more than one pack a day. That comes to a minimum of 150.00 per month for one pack a day. The money could easily be spent for health insurance

    Those who eat to excess, consume more food than they need. They too can save money, just by cutting their food consumption. The money they save can be spent on health insurance.

    These ideas may seem elementary, however, doctors see patient after patient who indulge themselves, in one way or another.

    Auto insurance and health insurance are both important, more important then most of what people spend their discretionary income on.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Individuals are required by law pay for auto insurance.

    This is not true.

    The statute requires proof of financial responsibility. Drivers must show that they can compensate a victim in case they incur a liability following an accident.

    http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.601.htm

    Plenty of us can prove that we can afford to pay for our own medical treatment. So we shouldn’t be required to buy insurance since financially speaking we don’t need it. Of course that doesn’t do anything for the insurance company profits, or those who can’t afford medical treatment, government bureaucrats, etc.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Individuals are required by law pay for auto insurance.

    This is not true.

    The statute requires proof of financial responsibility. Drivers must show that they can compensate a victim in case they incur a liability following an accident.

    http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.601.htm

    Plenty of us can prove that we can afford to pay for our own medical treatment. So we shouldn’t be required to buy insurance since financially speaking we don’t need it. Of course that doesn’t do anything for the insurance company profits, or those who can’t afford medical treatment, government bureaucrats, etc.

  • Grace

    Financial Responsibility Laws
    California’s Compulsory Financial Responsibility Law requires every driver and owner of a motor vehicle to be financially responsible for their actions. The statutory minimum limits of liability insurance in California are as follows:

    Bodily Injury

    $15,000 for death or injury of any one person, any one accident.
    $30,000 for all persons in any one accident.
    Property Damage

    $5,000 for any one accident.
    There are four ways to accomplish financial responsibility:

    Coverage by a motor vehicle or automobile liability insurance policy;
    A cash deposit of $35,000 with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV);
    A certificate of self-insurance issued by DMV to owners of fleets of more than 25 vehicles; or
    A surety bond for $35,000 obtained from an insurance company licensed to do business in California.
    All California drivers and owners must have at least the statutory limits of minimum liability insurance or an approved alternative way to pay for injury or property damage they may cause. Penalties are very severe for non-compliance with this section of the vehicle code.

    When your car is in an accident for which you are found legally liable, bodily injury (BI) liability covers your liability to others for injuries to them. Property damage (PD) liability covers your liability for damage to someone else’s property.

    A policy with BI of $15,000/$30,000 and PD of $5,000 will pay out as follows:

    The maximum limit for one person’s injuries, medical expenses is $15,000 under the bodily injury portion;
    If two or more people are injured, the maximum limit for the accident will be $30,000;
    The maximum limit for damage to other people’s property (their car, their fence, etc.) is $5,000.
    Comprehensive coverage (other than collision), uninsured motorist, medical payments and collision insurance are not required by law.

    What Could Happen If I Ignore This Law?
    The most common way drivers choose to comply with the financial responsibility requirement is by purchasing an automobile liability insurance policy. If you have an accident not covered by insurance, then your license may be suspended. It is your responsibility to provide liability insurance for any vehicle you own regardless of who is operating the vehicle. It is illegal for those vehicles to be operated without meeting the requirements of this law.

  • Grace

    Financial Responsibility Laws
    California’s Compulsory Financial Responsibility Law requires every driver and owner of a motor vehicle to be financially responsible for their actions. The statutory minimum limits of liability insurance in California are as follows:

    Bodily Injury

    $15,000 for death or injury of any one person, any one accident.
    $30,000 for all persons in any one accident.
    Property Damage

    $5,000 for any one accident.
    There are four ways to accomplish financial responsibility:

    Coverage by a motor vehicle or automobile liability insurance policy;
    A cash deposit of $35,000 with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV);
    A certificate of self-insurance issued by DMV to owners of fleets of more than 25 vehicles; or
    A surety bond for $35,000 obtained from an insurance company licensed to do business in California.
    All California drivers and owners must have at least the statutory limits of minimum liability insurance or an approved alternative way to pay for injury or property damage they may cause. Penalties are very severe for non-compliance with this section of the vehicle code.

    When your car is in an accident for which you are found legally liable, bodily injury (BI) liability covers your liability to others for injuries to them. Property damage (PD) liability covers your liability for damage to someone else’s property.

    A policy with BI of $15,000/$30,000 and PD of $5,000 will pay out as follows:

    The maximum limit for one person’s injuries, medical expenses is $15,000 under the bodily injury portion;
    If two or more people are injured, the maximum limit for the accident will be $30,000;
    The maximum limit for damage to other people’s property (their car, their fence, etc.) is $5,000.
    Comprehensive coverage (other than collision), uninsured motorist, medical payments and collision insurance are not required by law.

    What Could Happen If I Ignore This Law?
    The most common way drivers choose to comply with the financial responsibility requirement is by purchasing an automobile liability insurance policy. If you have an accident not covered by insurance, then your license may be suspended. It is your responsibility to provide liability insurance for any vehicle you own regardless of who is operating the vehicle. It is illegal for those vehicles to be operated without meeting the requirements of this law.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Grace, this is a link to the California statute. There are alternatives to insurance, albeit not too attractive to most people.

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=16001-17000&file=16430-16436

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Grace, this is a link to the California statute. There are alternatives to insurance, albeit not too attractive to most people.

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=16001-17000&file=16430-16436

  • Grace

    sg,

    The info I posted is correct, as of this year 2012.

    We all know what the law requires for auto insurance.

  • Grace

    sg,

    The info I posted is correct, as of this year 2012.

    We all know what the law requires for auto insurance.

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    “Finally, the main problem with the health care industry is that it has been really hard to charge young healthy people (who don’t use much service) high premiums because they can just choose not to buy it.”

    But if you’re opposed to the new health care law because of that, how could you have been happy under the old system? As an 18-65 year old male, there’s a huge chunk of my paycheck going to Medicare, and it’s possibly I myself might not even have health insurance. How is forcing somebody to pay a tax better than forcing them to buy insurance? At least when you buy insurance you get something of a product back, whereas when you’re taxed you don’t necessarily get anything back.

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    “Finally, the main problem with the health care industry is that it has been really hard to charge young healthy people (who don’t use much service) high premiums because they can just choose not to buy it.”

    But if you’re opposed to the new health care law because of that, how could you have been happy under the old system? As an 18-65 year old male, there’s a huge chunk of my paycheck going to Medicare, and it’s possibly I myself might not even have health insurance. How is forcing somebody to pay a tax better than forcing them to buy insurance? At least when you buy insurance you get something of a product back, whereas when you’re taxed you don’t necessarily get anything back.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “How is forcing somebody to pay a tax better than forcing them to buy insurance?”

    This isn’t some morality issue or situational ethics. We have a constitution. Government has specific powers that it can use. It can’t do anything and everything. There are limits. If we want to grant our federal government the power to force us to buy stuff, then we need to propose a constitutional amendment to make it legal. Yes, it is faster and easier if the SCOTUS just makes it up, but then we don’t have rule of law.

    At least when you buy insurance you get something of a product back, whereas when you’re taxed you don’t necessarily get anything back.

    Not if you have enough money to actually pay your own medical care. Then it is cheaper to just pay for it.

    Also, if the government is just going to force people to pay for stuff, how about they just make people pay their own medical bills and not allow them to be discharged in bankruptcy? That would be a one page bill. Of course, that wouldn’t be too popular because fallen creatures that we are, we want everyone else to pay for what we need, and like little kids we will save “our” money for fun stuff like longer vacations, faster cars and new electronics.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “How is forcing somebody to pay a tax better than forcing them to buy insurance?”

    This isn’t some morality issue or situational ethics. We have a constitution. Government has specific powers that it can use. It can’t do anything and everything. There are limits. If we want to grant our federal government the power to force us to buy stuff, then we need to propose a constitutional amendment to make it legal. Yes, it is faster and easier if the SCOTUS just makes it up, but then we don’t have rule of law.

    At least when you buy insurance you get something of a product back, whereas when you’re taxed you don’t necessarily get anything back.

    Not if you have enough money to actually pay your own medical care. Then it is cheaper to just pay for it.

    Also, if the government is just going to force people to pay for stuff, how about they just make people pay their own medical bills and not allow them to be discharged in bankruptcy? That would be a one page bill. Of course, that wouldn’t be too popular because fallen creatures that we are, we want everyone else to pay for what we need, and like little kids we will save “our” money for fun stuff like longer vacations, faster cars and new electronics.

  • Med Student

    The major difference between car insurance and health insurance is that if you choose not to have a car, you don’t have to buy insurance. The only way to get out of paying for health insurance (or paying a penalty) under the healthcare law is to either stop being a US citizen or to die. You’re forced to pay for a private good/service (not a tax) not by virtue of making a choice to engage in a behavior like owning and operating a vehicle, but by virtue of the fact that you’re alive. If you’re young and healthy and think that you could make do paying out of pocket, maybe with a bit of low premium high deductible catastrophic insurance in case of an accident, well too bad – the government has decided for you that this is no longer an option.

  • Med Student

    The major difference between car insurance and health insurance is that if you choose not to have a car, you don’t have to buy insurance. The only way to get out of paying for health insurance (or paying a penalty) under the healthcare law is to either stop being a US citizen or to die. You’re forced to pay for a private good/service (not a tax) not by virtue of making a choice to engage in a behavior like owning and operating a vehicle, but by virtue of the fact that you’re alive. If you’re young and healthy and think that you could make do paying out of pocket, maybe with a bit of low premium high deductible catastrophic insurance in case of an accident, well too bad – the government has decided for you that this is no longer an option.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The info I posted is correct, as of this year 2012.

    We all know what the law requires for auto insurance.”

    People generally use insurance to meet the requirement, but the actual legal requirement is financial responsibility, not a requirement to buy insurance. There is a difference, even if it is nitpicking.

    The health care law actually requires people to buy insurance. It specifically does not require financial responsibility.

    These are two different critters.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The info I posted is correct, as of this year 2012.

    We all know what the law requires for auto insurance.”

    People generally use insurance to meet the requirement, but the actual legal requirement is financial responsibility, not a requirement to buy insurance. There is a difference, even if it is nitpicking.

    The health care law actually requires people to buy insurance. It specifically does not require financial responsibility.

    These are two different critters.

  • Grace

    sg, – “There is a difference, even if it is nitpicking. “

    It is, – and serves no purpose.

  • Grace

    sg, – “There is a difference, even if it is nitpicking. “

    It is, – and serves no purpose.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “It is, – and serves no purpose.”

    It serves the purpose to distinguish between two laws, one that requires financial responsibility and another that does not.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “It is, – and serves no purpose.”

    It serves the purpose to distinguish between two laws, one that requires financial responsibility and another that does not.

  • Michael B.

    @sg

    “Not if you have enough money to actually pay your own medical care. Then it is cheaper to just pay for it. ”

    The problem is a lot of people don’t have this money, and then demand it when they turn 65 and need a lot of medical care. It’d be like if I drove my car without insurance, and then demanded the government pay when I caused an accident I can’t afford.

  • Michael B.

    @sg

    “Not if you have enough money to actually pay your own medical care. Then it is cheaper to just pay for it. ”

    The problem is a lot of people don’t have this money, and then demand it when they turn 65 and need a lot of medical care. It’d be like if I drove my car without insurance, and then demanded the government pay when I caused an accident I can’t afford.

  • P.C.

    Grace,

    Your argument is flat. However you are correct that in CA licensed drivers either have to post a surety bond or have the minimum insurance requirements as you stated. However, you don’t need either, or any, if you don’t operate a motor vehicle.

    There is a world of legal difference between what CA law mandates for licensed motor vehicle operators and what ObamaCare mandates for citizens who may or may not need health care. Or those who simply desire to pay for the health care of their own choosing and the frequency of that health care whether that be by private insurance or by writing a check.

  • P.C.

    Grace,

    Your argument is flat. However you are correct that in CA licensed drivers either have to post a surety bond or have the minimum insurance requirements as you stated. However, you don’t need either, or any, if you don’t operate a motor vehicle.

    There is a world of legal difference between what CA law mandates for licensed motor vehicle operators and what ObamaCare mandates for citizens who may or may not need health care. Or those who simply desire to pay for the health care of their own choosing and the frequency of that health care whether that be by private insurance or by writing a check.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The problem is a lot of people don’t have this money,

    Yes, that is the problem, but these “solutions” exacerbate the problem by funneling ever more money to insurers not providers. The insurers get paid up front (sweet) and work 9-5. The doctors provide their services up front 24-7 and hope to collect and not get sued. So, if the health care law were designed to train more doctors to replace the doctors who are baby boomers (who are retiring), and women (who quit at a high rate) and actually provide care instead of insurance coverage, then I would think it would be a better design.

    and then demand it when they turn 65 and need a lot of medical care.

    Define need, which the health care act actually attempts.
    I need a lot of stuff if you are paying, but far less when I am paying.

    Anyway, folks were promised Medicare way back in the ’60′s, I think. They have been told that they have been paying for it all along in the payroll tax. They feel entitled to it. It is an entitlement. I am not defending it. Just explaining. It was a stupid idea from the get go.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The problem is a lot of people don’t have this money,

    Yes, that is the problem, but these “solutions” exacerbate the problem by funneling ever more money to insurers not providers. The insurers get paid up front (sweet) and work 9-5. The doctors provide their services up front 24-7 and hope to collect and not get sued. So, if the health care law were designed to train more doctors to replace the doctors who are baby boomers (who are retiring), and women (who quit at a high rate) and actually provide care instead of insurance coverage, then I would think it would be a better design.

    and then demand it when they turn 65 and need a lot of medical care.

    Define need, which the health care act actually attempts.
    I need a lot of stuff if you are paying, but far less when I am paying.

    Anyway, folks were promised Medicare way back in the ’60′s, I think. They have been told that they have been paying for it all along in the payroll tax. They feel entitled to it. It is an entitlement. I am not defending it. Just explaining. It was a stupid idea from the get go.

  • Michael B.

    SG wrote: “I would think it would be a better design. ”

    I am not at all saying that the new health care plan couldn’t be a lot better. But what I don’t get are all these people who were relatively content under the old plan, but are up in arms over the new one.

  • Michael B.

    SG wrote: “I would think it would be a better design. ”

    I am not at all saying that the new health care plan couldn’t be a lot better. But what I don’t get are all these people who were relatively content under the old plan, but are up in arms over the new one.

  • Grace

    P.C. @ 34

    “However, you don’t need either, or any, if you don’t operate a motor vehicle.’

    LOL, who would have ever thought of that?

    “There is a world of legal difference between what CA law mandates for licensed motor vehicle operators and what ObamaCare mandates for citizens who may or may not need health care. Or those who simply desire to pay for the health care of their own choosing and the frequency of that health care whether that be by private insurance or by writing a check.”

    The point is P.C. everyone, if they have an auto, are required to have insurance of some sort, to protect whomever they run into, it’s only fair.

    Anyone can become ill with a catastrophic illness. Many people think they don’t need health insurance, until someone in their family becomes ill, needs a surgery, MRI, CT scan, or a variety of other procedures and tests, or constant care, from time to time in a hospital, medication, and frequent doctors visits, which run into thousands of dollars, … and then claim “I never thought this would happen” – But it does, that’s why they need health insurance.

    Very few people have the resources to pay for surgeries out of their own funds, or the diagnostic tests required to enable physicians to diagnose their problem.

    I don’t believe everyone can afford health care, but the majority can, the problem is, they would rather spend their money elsewhere, rather than insure their own care and that of their family.

  • Grace

    P.C. @ 34

    “However, you don’t need either, or any, if you don’t operate a motor vehicle.’

    LOL, who would have ever thought of that?

    “There is a world of legal difference between what CA law mandates for licensed motor vehicle operators and what ObamaCare mandates for citizens who may or may not need health care. Or those who simply desire to pay for the health care of their own choosing and the frequency of that health care whether that be by private insurance or by writing a check.”

    The point is P.C. everyone, if they have an auto, are required to have insurance of some sort, to protect whomever they run into, it’s only fair.

    Anyone can become ill with a catastrophic illness. Many people think they don’t need health insurance, until someone in their family becomes ill, needs a surgery, MRI, CT scan, or a variety of other procedures and tests, or constant care, from time to time in a hospital, medication, and frequent doctors visits, which run into thousands of dollars, … and then claim “I never thought this would happen” – But it does, that’s why they need health insurance.

    Very few people have the resources to pay for surgeries out of their own funds, or the diagnostic tests required to enable physicians to diagnose their problem.

    I don’t believe everyone can afford health care, but the majority can, the problem is, they would rather spend their money elsewhere, rather than insure their own care and that of their family.

  • Med Student

    Michael B,
    Two thoughts on your point in 36:
    First, there’s a fair number of people who do have problems with Medicare/Medicaid and think they’re unconstitutional (and have thought so long before Obamacare).
    Second, a lot of people see a major difference between paying taxes to fund a federal program like Medicare (similar to how we pay taxes for the military, FBI, national parks, etc), versus having to buy a product from a private third party or face a fine if you don’t, as a condition of citizenship. That’s never been done before.

  • Med Student

    Michael B,
    Two thoughts on your point in 36:
    First, there’s a fair number of people who do have problems with Medicare/Medicaid and think they’re unconstitutional (and have thought so long before Obamacare).
    Second, a lot of people see a major difference between paying taxes to fund a federal program like Medicare (similar to how we pay taxes for the military, FBI, national parks, etc), versus having to buy a product from a private third party or face a fine if you don’t, as a condition of citizenship. That’s never been done before.

  • Grace

    Med Student @ 38

    I believe very strongly that all immigrants, either legal or illigal, making it mandatory that they have health insurance. If they don’t they should be deported. All too often, those who are illegal, send at least half their income back over the southern border, it’s wrong, the burden then becomes that of the citizens of this country.

  • Grace

    Med Student @ 38

    I believe very strongly that all immigrants, either legal or illigal, making it mandatory that they have health insurance. If they don’t they should be deported. All too often, those who are illegal, send at least half their income back over the southern border, it’s wrong, the burden then becomes that of the citizens of this country.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    But what I don’t get are all these people who were relatively content under the old plan, but are up in arms over the new one.

    He he he

    Well at, what, 2700 pages, there is a lot of her to love/hate. :D

    We’re gonna find out all the features. We just have to wait!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    But what I don’t get are all these people who were relatively content under the old plan, but are up in arms over the new one.

    He he he

    Well at, what, 2700 pages, there is a lot of her to love/hate. :D

    We’re gonna find out all the features. We just have to wait!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I see the flaw of a mandate like I see the Patriot Act. Even if you like some of the Patriot Act because you think it will be used against “them” not “us” doesn’t change the fact that it can be used against “us”.

    This is legal inside baseball.

    Even if universal coverage/access/whatever is the goal, this is not the way to go about it because it sets a precedent that is very anti liberty.

    For the Dems that like it, consider how they might not be so keen to buy a product that a Republican House, Senate and President might legislate that we should buy. Once we have the legal precedent, we no longer have control.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I see the flaw of a mandate like I see the Patriot Act. Even if you like some of the Patriot Act because you think it will be used against “them” not “us” doesn’t change the fact that it can be used against “us”.

    This is legal inside baseball.

    Even if universal coverage/access/whatever is the goal, this is not the way to go about it because it sets a precedent that is very anti liberty.

    For the Dems that like it, consider how they might not be so keen to buy a product that a Republican House, Senate and President might legislate that we should buy. Once we have the legal precedent, we no longer have control.

  • DonS

    Heh. Obama’s increasing desperation is showing just how far in over his head he really is.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

  • DonS

    Heh. Obama’s increasing desperation is showing just how far in over his head he really is.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

  • Jeff

    Grace,

    In the United States, our central government does not require *anyone* to purchase automobile insurance. That is left to the states, and all fifty states handle liability and minimum insurance requirements differently. And that is exactly what the US Constitution provides for…the states have broader legislative power than the central government. States have the power to require insurance…the central government does not.

    And so it should be with health insurance, at least from a legal/constitutional standpoint. Justifying a federal mandate for health insurance based on a state requiring auto insurance is like comparing apples to oranges.

    Jeff

  • Jeff

    Grace,

    In the United States, our central government does not require *anyone* to purchase automobile insurance. That is left to the states, and all fifty states handle liability and minimum insurance requirements differently. And that is exactly what the US Constitution provides for…the states have broader legislative power than the central government. States have the power to require insurance…the central government does not.

    And so it should be with health insurance, at least from a legal/constitutional standpoint. Justifying a federal mandate for health insurance based on a state requiring auto insurance is like comparing apples to oranges.

    Jeff

  • Grace

    Jeff @ 43

    Health insurance, if managed by the states, choosing not to endorse a free health plan – would, (if those who couldn’t get free health care from their state) entice them to move where free health care would be paid for by the state. It would burden those states with free health insurance.

    I don’t agree at all with Obama’s health plan, no matter how we, as citizens are made to pay for it.

    For the vast majority of citizens, and those who are legal, they are able to pay for their health insurance. With nearly 20 million illegal aliens, we are paying a huge some of money already for their care, as they send 50% of their money over the southern border home. Instead they could use that money for health insurance. See my post @ 39.

    As for auto insurance – anyone who is stopped for a traffic violation in CA, is asked to see their drivers license and insurance, by the police officer. Most all illegals, have auto insurance, but the illigalls do not have CA drivers licenses. Their autos/trucks are impounded for 30 days at 100.00 dollars a day, which amounts to 3,000.00 dollars. I believe this to be fair. It’s amazing how many drive very nice trucks and cars.

  • Grace

    Jeff @ 43

    Health insurance, if managed by the states, choosing not to endorse a free health plan – would, (if those who couldn’t get free health care from their state) entice them to move where free health care would be paid for by the state. It would burden those states with free health insurance.

    I don’t agree at all with Obama’s health plan, no matter how we, as citizens are made to pay for it.

    For the vast majority of citizens, and those who are legal, they are able to pay for their health insurance. With nearly 20 million illegal aliens, we are paying a huge some of money already for their care, as they send 50% of their money over the southern border home. Instead they could use that money for health insurance. See my post @ 39.

    As for auto insurance – anyone who is stopped for a traffic violation in CA, is asked to see their drivers license and insurance, by the police officer. Most all illegals, have auto insurance, but the illigalls do not have CA drivers licenses. Their autos/trucks are impounded for 30 days at 100.00 dollars a day, which amounts to 3,000.00 dollars. I believe this to be fair. It’s amazing how many drive very nice trucks and cars.

  • Jeff

    Grace,

    Don’t get me wrong: I’m not in favor of my state (Tennessee) having state-run health care (although we do have it). I’m just saying that according to the US Constitution, a state may do so, while there is no enumerated power allowing the central government to do the same.

    As far as people flooding out of states with no state-run health care, and into states with such care…that doesn’t seem to happen. I admit, it sounds logical. But it is already the case that many states have their own state-run care, others don’t, and yet there is no mass exodus into the states with the health plans.

    However, I agree with some of what you say, and I appreciate that you are giving me a run-down on how these things work in California, as I am not terribly familiar with that state.

  • Jeff

    Grace,

    Don’t get me wrong: I’m not in favor of my state (Tennessee) having state-run health care (although we do have it). I’m just saying that according to the US Constitution, a state may do so, while there is no enumerated power allowing the central government to do the same.

    As far as people flooding out of states with no state-run health care, and into states with such care…that doesn’t seem to happen. I admit, it sounds logical. But it is already the case that many states have their own state-run care, others don’t, and yet there is no mass exodus into the states with the health plans.

    However, I agree with some of what you say, and I appreciate that you are giving me a run-down on how these things work in California, as I am not terribly familiar with that state.