O’Reilly Promotes Fringe Constitutional Attack on Health Care: An Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional
O’Reilly Promotes Fringe Constitutional Attack on Health Care: An Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional
While progressives fight to fix a broken health system that leaves millions of Americans without access to lifesaving care, conservatives are increasingly offering fringe constitutional theories to lock the status quo in place forever. Last night, Bill O’Reilly joined their number, claiming that an individual mandate requiring almost all Americans to be insured is unconstitutional because “the federal government cannot force you to do or buy anything.” Watch it:
Fox anchor Megyn Kelly tells O’Reilly in the same segment that she is not sure whether an individual mandate is constitutional because it would “require days and weeks of research” for her to determine whether it is.
Kelly could spend days and weeks researching this question, but the Wonk Room already addressed it on Monday. As the Supreme Court held in Gonzales v. Raich, the Constitution empowers Congress to enact broad regulatory schemes that “substantially affect interstate commerce.” This power includes authority to enact broad reforms that concern “economic activity,” and an individual mandate unquestionably falls within the scope of this power:
The [individual mandate] would require most uninsured Americans to buy a product — health insurance coverage — which pools thousands of people’s premiums together and pays those people’s medical costs as they become ill. … [T]he individual mandate would lower premiums nationwide by requiring more healthy individuals to buy into the system; while reducing the risk of catastrophic financial loss should a person who was previously uninsured experience catastrophic illness. It is difficult to imagine a law which has a more obvious economic impact than a requirement that all Americans be insured.
So O’Reilly’s constitutional attack on health reform is entirely without merit. Sadly, however, it is also one of the least virulent theories being advanced by right-wing constitutional theorists. A number of elected conservatives, including Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) are proud members of the “tenther” movement — a movement that believes that landmark progressive reforms such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, federal education funding, the VA health system, the G.I. Bill, the federal minimum wage, and the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters are all unconstitutional. Since they could never pass such a radical agenda through Congress, conservatives now want to rewrite the Constitution to suit their ends.
Transcript:
KELLY: There are some questions. And they have been totally ignored, interestingly enough.
O’REILLY: They have been?
KELLY: By most of the media.
O’REILLY: Right.
KELLY: And by most constitutional scholars. Everyone just assumes that President Obama and the Democrats can impose this tax on us, this — basically the legislation coming out of both houses of Congress proposed would say you have to get health insurance. And either have to get it through your employer, if you don’t have it through your employer, you have to pay for it. You have to buy it if you don’t.
O’REILLY: Yeah, but if you’re governmental funded.
KELLY: Right.
O’REILLY: But they do this in Massachusetts already.
KELLY: They say if you don’t do it, then you’re be fined by the federal government there.
O’REILLY: Right.
KELLY: And there’s a real question about whether the Congress has the power to do that to you. They’d be doing it probably under their commerce clause power, which is the broadest power that they have. But the courts in the past decade or so have really cracked down a little bit more on commerce clause power and just don’t give Congress an empty check.
O’REILLY: So are you saying it is not constitutional to force people to buy health care?
KELLY: I’m saying that would require days and weeks of research.
O’REILLY: Days and weeks.
KELLY: So we don’t have that.
O’REILLY: And you don’t have that, do you, Kelly?
And not only do I not have it.
O’REILLY: Yeah.
KELLY: .but the constitutional scholars don’t have it yet. What do you say?
WIEHL: Constitutional scholars are all over the place.
O’REILLY: Constitutional?
WIEHL: I say that it is constitutional. I don’t like a lot of parts of this health plan but the.
O’REILLY: I don’t care what you like or not like.
WIEHL: But Commerce.
O’REILLY: .why is it constitutional? All right, nobody, hold it, Wiehl.
KELLY: Any time somebody drives a truck.
O’REILLY: Wiehl, stop talking. Nobody understands what the commerce clause is.
WIEHL: Right.
O’REILLY: Please explain it briefly.
WIEHL: Okay, Article I in the constitution.
O’REILLY: Yes.
WIEHL: .the Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. That is anything that goes from one state to the other.
O’REILLY: Okay, so what?
WIEHL: So a trucker. They can – and takes your lettuce from one state to the other. They can.
O’REILLY: What does that have to do with health care?
WIEHL: Health care itself may be local. Your doctor may be in your state but the medical supplies that come to you, the medical equipment, all of the things.
O’REILLY: So what? Why can they make you buy anything?
WIEHL: Because they can regulate interstate commerce. Those things go through interstate.
O’REILLY: Okay.
WIEHL: They can force you.
O’REILLY: Now I want the audience to know this is total B.S. This is why people hate lawyers.
KELLY: This is the constitution.
O’REILLY: This is nuts. All right, here’s the question, Kelly. And I’m going to give one more shot, Wiehl. The government is saying you have to buy health insurance. You have to do it.
KELLY: Right.
O’REILLY: I say that’s unconstitutional. The federal government doesn’t have the power to force an American to buy anything.
KELLY: That is the distinction between this case and most of the cases that come under the commerce clause power. It’s more like a taxing power. I mean, the Congress has the power to tax us, too. Let’s not fool ourselves.
O’REILLY: Okay, but this is it has nothing to do with taxes.
KELLY: Well, no, but.
O’REILLY: It has defining – they’re finding, I understand it. But I think on the upfront, Wiehl, the government cannot buy that dress, Wiehl. You have to buy that dress because it’s good for you. They can’t tell to you buy anything.
WIEHL: Or they can tax you. They can’t tell you to buy it, or they can tax you. Megyn’s absolutely right one way or the other.
O’REILLY: But they’re telling you to buy it. And if you don’t, you’re punished.
WIEHL: Because and they’re also saying you are going to get a benefit a government benefit.
O’REILLY: I think the Supreme Court would say.
KELLY: You have a decent point because.
O’REILLY: Yeah.
KELLY: .normally they can’t tax you unless they had the power to regulate the behavior they want to tax you for in the first place. So we’re back to the commerce clause and do they have the power.
O’REILLY: I don’t want to hear it. Give me a headache. I’m going to go on the record a saying now this is unconstitutional. The federal government cannot force you to do or buy anything.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bill O’reilly is to “credible journalism” what an iceberg was to a certain famous ocean going steamliner…
August 26th, 2009 at 10:53 amI really want to see new sites and blogs like this develop their video capability, to help to finally wipe the “news” channels like Fox off the map.
That day is not too far away.
So far, Murdoch has not figured out a way to censor the free flow of information on-line.
He might start charging for FoxNews material, but only the most deluded white-winger would pay for that GOPshite.
Screw the repiggies, and screw the teabagger trash.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:55 amO’Really?:
“I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but I play one on TV.”
August 26th, 2009 at 10:55 amThis article contains the answer to countering these clowns: …VA health system, the G.I. Bill
Hammer away at Why the conservatives are against veterans benefits, and veterans in general. Hammer away over and over, Why are they against OUR soldiers? Why are they against desegregation? Why do they want to reinstate the ban against A-A’s?
It’s no sin to hammer away at the righties the way they do the left.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:56 amFox anchor Megyn Kelly…is not sure whether an individual mandate is constitutional because it would “require days and weeks of research” for her to determine whether it is.
– - The same diligent research that led Kelly to the “terrorist fist-bump” meme.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:57 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
“So O’Reilly’s constitutional attack on health reform is entirely without merit.”
BillO’s entire life is entirely without merit.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:01 amKaneJeeves, the VA is one government-run institution that the wingers actually have a point about. It’s been an abysmal and shameful system to provide care for our military men and women. I don’t think it’s the shining light of truth you may think it is.
It’s better than it has ever been, but there have been far too many dark days for the VA…such as post-Vietnam, etc. Ever seen “Born On The Fourth Of July”?
Megyn Kelly didn’t do the terrorist fist-bump remark, Badmoodman. That was some other bimbo who lost her show on FOX. One of the few neocon casualties of media whoredom.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:02 amWell, Igmoreilly, its the private inusrance lobbyists that are pushing for mandatory private health insurance.
What was it the CEO of some private insurance said about the profits from a mandatory health insurance…Hallelujah!!
August 26th, 2009 at 11:04 amOne would think Bildo would have his ’staff’ do a little legal research before spewing his OPINION on TV . .
Maybe Falafel will clear up all non-believable ‘constitutional issues’ with the idiot Toe Sucker . .
August 26th, 2009 at 11:04 amThis war was fought between 1861 and 1865 and Bill-O’s side lost. The Commerce Clause allows Congress to pass a bill with an individual mandate. The Supremacy Clause dictates that said law overrides any conflicting state law. As for any argument that an individual mandate would violate due process, I respectfully suggest that if my state can make me buy auto insurance my federal government can make me buy health insurance. Finally, ever notice how the idiots who claim this is unconstitutional (1) generally aren’t lawyers; and (2) aren’t volunteering to go uninsured?
August 26th, 2009 at 11:05 amIgmoreilly will probably hire Alberto, Yoo, Addington and Feith to say YES to all his legal views..
August 26th, 2009 at 11:06 amaaronk said:
“What do you guys have against the constitution anyway?”
Daddy-O sez:
ha ha
What NERVE you have, aaronk. What NERVE.
Signing statements? Junking entire treaties, especially the Geneva Convention, not to mention more modern anti-torture treaties the U.S. has signed, the highest laws of the land under the Constitution? Illegally moving $750 million allocated by Congress for the Afghan Invasion to RESEARCH the future Iraq Invasion? Warrantless wiretapping? Total Information Awareness? Suspending habeus corpus?
The Bush administration was hard put to find a single clause in the Constitution it did NOT trash–except, of course, the Unitary Executive Dictator and Protector of the People clause.
They put it in themselves…
You got nothin’. Absolutely nothin’. When the moral ‘high’ ground you stand on is quicksand and mud, that is your future, Bucky Boy.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:08 amUm, Billo…Car Insurance? Licensing to practice law, medicine, etc.?
Any of those ring bells, you great stupid git?
August 26th, 2009 at 11:08 am“Hey, put down that pipe and get my pipe up!”
~ Bill O’Reilly
August 26th, 2009 at 11:08 amIf you pay attention and read what people write here they are FOR the constitution and against such things as illegal wiretapping.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:09 amThe Commerce clause has been broadly construed since the 1930’s. Because most economic activities reach multiple states, the clause applies to virtually all business. It is too late to argue the 10th Amendment since that attack on the laws has already been dismissed. However, I do not believe that the idea that the individual mandate will lower costs. There are uninsured people whose medical costs will equal or outweigh those people who are healthy. I see it as a wash.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:10 amMitt Romney will be upset to learn this.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:10 amI have asked before and do so again: If the government mandates health insurance coverage to be purchased, what will they do to make the cost truly affordable? What about people who have to live on minimum wage (assuming they are able to work a 40-hour weekly schedule they will still make less than $16,000 a year). They will not be able to afford it.
What then? Fine them, charge them, put them in jail? File a lawsuit against them?
You can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:10 amDear friends, whenever you wish to attack the trolls, please don’t quote any of their lines.
It only serves to keep them visible.
Attack the trolls without quoting them, please.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:10 amaaronk says:
this whole post is…
In what way are their own words “spin” from a bias on the part of the left?
August 26th, 2009 at 11:11 amFor the record, the VA health system is quite possibly the best in the country.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:13 ampags2 says:
However, I do not believe that the idea that the individual mandate will lower costs. There are uninsured people whose medical costs will equal or outweigh those people who are healthy. I see it as a wash.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:10 am
__________
Perhaps, but one could also argue that the potential medical costs for currently uninsured people are much higher because they don’t have access to preventative care and early-detection screenings that could save them from more expensive interventions later. I don’t see it as a wash, I see it as an investment.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:17 amWhile the individual mandate may be constitutional, it will also be a huge windfall for the insurance companies (which is why it’s the one thing the insurance companies support).
And, if we get an individual mandate (which is already in ALL the bills) without a public option, you will be forced to buy insurance from the insurance companies that you can’t afford to buy from now.
You’ll end up worse off:
You’ll have some crappy junk plan that won’t cover much of anything but for which you will be legally mandated to pay.
Is this reform?
August 26th, 2009 at 11:17 amCompletely OT, but I can’t help wondering…
What will Limbaugh and the other cretins do to ‘celebrate’ the death of Ted Kennedy? It was at least fifteen years ago, but I remember how Limbaugh celebrated the death of a famous woman environmentalist (I can’t even think of her name) who spent her time and energy trying to keep loggers out of virgin and old-growth forests of California.
Limbaugh, on the day of her death, launched a sarcastic screed memorializing the more famous deeds of her life–to an obnoxious sound track of a chain saw buzz in the background.
He can be very creative. I might even break my promise to myself and actually listen to his show today…eh, I’ll just read Media Matters tomorrow instead. No sense in giving myself a headache or an angry spell for that.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:17 amGrandma wont die because of lack of private health insurance…she will die because she cant afford to eat to pay for it.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:17 amRandall Terry should dress as a AIG CEO and then steal food from grandma and grandpa.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:18 amIanM, I appreciate the rebuttal to my claim. However…Dana Priest’s Pulitzer-winning WaPo Page One story about Walter Reed Hospital was reported RIGHT AFTER your linked Washington Monthly story.
It is indeed difficult for me to believe that George W. Bush may have left the VA in better shape than he found it, especially with two wars running and tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraq/Afghan vets going without PTSD treatment.
I am not convinced by your link, but I am always open to being shown otherwise.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:21 amFAUX should be unconstitutional. It offers nothing but divisivness in this country. They target the mental midgets, haters, and angry and offer nothing for the common good. O’Reilly is a disgusting example of hatemonger.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:21 amAs for the towhnall antics, when will these people learn they are, once again, working against their own interests and will, for their troubles, create everh higher private insurance premiums that will be, as other industry, subsidized by their tax dollars for the enormous profits of a few CEOs and their companies shareholders.
It is immoral for these middlemen to profit from healthcare.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:24 amI picture Randall Terry dressed as Nero nailing Jesus to a cross for healing people without profiting from it.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:26 amI’m leaning toward Maria_in_pgh’s POV on this…
I really don’t want to be “required” to pay one of the big insurers one thin dime.
If I’m going to be forced to pay premiums (which I can’t afford to do), then I’d sooner it was paid directly to Uncle Sam.
As someone who can’t afford a vacation, I’d really be pissed to contribute to a Cigna Exec’s “Month in Tuscany” fund.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:27 amI do like his logic. I’ll keep this in mind the next time he suggests that the government can tell you to have a baby if you get pregnant.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:29 amThe only thing health insurance CEOs fear more than single payer or the public option is bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.
If Reagan had never abolished that simple FCC order, the Far Right would never have had the propaganda push they’ve enjoyed ever since. And the Conventional Wisdom of this country would be a helluva lot more progressive.
As it stands…the fight for our country continues, and the worst attacks come from FOX News.
May they all burn slowly in Hell forever and ever for what they’ve done to the people, the children and the essence of America.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:29 amWalter Reed is an Army hospital, it serves active duty servicemembers. The VA health system is run by the Department of Veterans Affairs, it serves former servicemembers.
I doubt doubt Priest’s reporting about our deplorable recent treatment of our sick and wounded warriors, but the Army health system is entirely different from the VA system, and the VA system is outstanding.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:31 amtroll vote-down party happening on think fast thread
perhaps we TPers should go counter it
August 26th, 2009 at 11:32 amtombaker sed:
“I’d really be pissed to contribute to a Cigna Exec’s “Month in Tuscany” fund.”
As sorry as I am to hear you can’t afford a vacation, Tom…your comment was LOL pure comedy gold, baby!
Been there. I’ve gone for years without any sort of vacation, before I knew it’s GOOD FOR YOU to take one, whether you can afford it or not…that’s why countries like France and their Gold Standard health care laws REQUIRE people to take trips.
I thought of this just the other day: When we finally achieve real progress in this country, we ought to mandate INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL for each citizen. Think of it: All those wingers who’ve never left this country, never seen another culture, never met the brown people they are so easily convinced want to kill them.
It would be the best thing ever to happen to this country, and it will never happen as long as FOX News and their ilk still rule us like the pigs/wolves they are.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:33 amJoin the military igmoreilly and you will find out the problem with your logic.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:34 am“Fox anchor Megyn Kelly tells O’Reilly in the same segment that she is not sure whether an individual mandate is constitutional because it would “require days and weeks of research” for her to determine whether it is.”
August 26th, 2009 at 11:36 amBut why do research when it’s so much easier to throw out some lies that the Fox audience laps up? In the chyrons, Fox routinely changes the party designation from R to D when GOP politicians get caught in scandal.
Roger and Rupert don’t like too much research done if it conflicts with their agenda of permanent GOP dominance (whether the GOP has the majority or not).
Correction: France doesn’t require its citizens to take TRIPS. It requires them, however, to take time off from work. As in mandates. As in, you make LESS money if you refuse to take your vacation.
Wow. What a country! A country that at least pretends to have its citizen’s real interests at heart.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:36 amOh great, healthy, tanned, rested people being forced, with threats of imprisonment, to take time off from debt peonage.
/snark
August 26th, 2009 at 11:37 amFox anchor Megyn Kelly tells O’Reilly in the same segment that she is not sure whether an individual mandate is constitutional because it would “require days and weeks of research” for her to determine whether it is.
____________
The rest of what Megan said:
“And I’d have to read big, thick books with no pictures to color and it would make my head hurt… so I’m just going to agree with you, Bill, and leave it at that.”
August 26th, 2009 at 11:39 amWell, IanM, as I stand corrected on some of the facts, I am still not convinced that your claim is true.
Our VA? The United States of America’s VA? The best in the world? How is that even possible to prove, much less try to believe?
You claim our VA is better than France’s VA, when France’s health care system is the best in the world (for as many people as it serves)? You’ll really have to work hard to prove that to me, or anyone else.
What…do you work for the VA? Is that why you make this claim? Is there anyone who would believe such a statement on either the right OR the left?
Sorry, IanM, but I need a little more proof than just your word for this. If you’re up to it, show me–’cause I’m from Missouri.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:39 amMeghan Kelly is as much of a YES lawyer to FOX as Gonzo was to Bush
August 26th, 2009 at 11:40 amWell, Xisthrus, you and I, in our hearts, WISH we had the snark of your post as our present reality…
I mean…if it’s good enough for an entire nation of ‘Frogs’…why isn’t it good enough for Americans? And THAT is the one question the O’Reallys? of the world can never answer.
;-)
August 26th, 2009 at 11:41 amFox Opinion Network seems very concerned with the Constitution now that Obama is President. So where was the outrage when Bush said “The Constitution’s just a goddam piece of paper”
August 26th, 2009 at 11:42 amI’m not looking for a prolonged argument on the topic, so I will simply point out that my original comment said that the VA health system “is quite possibly the best in the country.” I’ll leave it to others to evaluate how it performs relative to France.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:45 am… seems when they added the words “under god”
August 26th, 2009 at 11:46 amthey forgot about the word “indivisible”…
…
Health care reform should have been passed during the last administration when the Constitution was less powerful. It would’ve been funny to hear the argument of why the Bill of Rights could be violated at the same time saying the Constitution doesn’t allow for health care. It allows for torture, but not health or general well-being: Bullshit!
August 26th, 2009 at 11:47 amHelen Rainier says:
I have asked before and do so again: If the government mandates health insurance coverage to be purchased, what will they do to make the cost truly affordable? What about people who have to live on minimum wage (assuming they are able to work a 40-hour weekly schedule they will still make less than $16,000 a year). They will not be able to afford it.
The insurance for people too poor to afford insurance is already provided by Medicaid which pays for the insurance. That insurance cost is based on a sliding scale so that it is free to families with minimum income. The individual mandate will cover people who are not covered or subsidized by Medicaid and those costs will be also scaled by income.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:49 amDear Lord, I think I agree with ORLY. I must need psychiatric coverage…
The “individual mandate” thing really puts a bad taste in my mouth. It just looks like bad law. It’s one thing to force someone to buy car insurance when they drive (I don’t) or homeowner’s insurance if they own their house (I don’t) but to force someone to buy insurance just for being alive? Doesn’t sit right with me. I don’t know that it’s illegal or unconstitutional per se, it just strikes me as a poor approach to the problem.
I’ll take single-payer or public-option, please.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:49 amOkay, IanM, that article is interesting, and supports your claim.
The only thing I have left is to parse the use of the words “Best in the world”, which I will not insist on you proving. That would be nearly impossible, unless each country’s leaders agreed with that statement in some Bizarro-World alternate reality.
However good the VA’s medical treatment is today, compared with before its reform…the real problem is getting the VA to give care they deny all too often. It’s a similar problem to the general public: A veteran who can’t get treatment from the VA is also going to be refused treatment if he can’t afford or is disqualified for private insurance. And that is a crime against our veterans AND our citizens, especially compared with any other industrialized nation.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:49 am“the federal government cannot force you to do or buy anything.”
Where was Bill O when I had to register for the selective service?
I will be sure to advise the IRS that I will no longer be filing or paying any federal taxes just cause Bill O says I don’t have to.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:49 amO’Reilly is making an argument FOR single-payer, government run health insurance. It is constitutional to pay taxes and the only program that can be assessed through taxes. Well that or socialized health care.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:50 amEat more Chicken.
Heh
August 26th, 2009 at 11:52 amAnd, IanM, I apologize for my outright assumption that you MEANT ‘the best VA in the world’ when you WROTE ‘best in the country’. That sentence just didn’t make sense to me, and I automatically re-translated it/fixed your ‘typo’ in my mind, until I read your last post above, #47. All miscommunication responsibility is on me this time.
And all the letters I wrote above…well, take it as a lesson, all you who would jump the shit of assumed ‘trolls’. You can discuss things civilly when 1) you disagree and 2) you miscommunicate. It’s possible.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:53 amMaybe Bill-O has seen the light….wait, sorry, thats just a rectal endoscope light.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:53 am“The individual mandate will cover people who are not covered or subsidized by Medicaid and those costs will be also scaled by income.”
Scaled? I’ve been underemployed for two years and am now laid off.
Scaled by how much and how good would the plan be that I would be forced to buy?
It does me no good if I have some high deductible plan with high out-of-pocket. I’ll end up with what I have now — no real coverage — but I’ll be forced to pay insurance company premiums on top of it.
I *will* be worse off.
NO MANDATE WITHOUT A PUBLIC OPTION
August 26th, 2009 at 11:58 amI think that, ’scaled’, means ‘offset’ by government subsidizing. The less you make would mean the more the private insurance folks get from government [taxpayers] and overall the cost would be more to the taxpayer, because of middlemen profiting, than a public insurance plan with no middlemen.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:02 pmBy that argument car insurance is also unconstitutional.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:05 pmI understand the concept of scaled. I am saying that I can literally not afford a penny more for anything.
If I am forced to buy coverage from an insurance company, I wilI have to buy the worst (cheapest) plan available. It will undoubtedly have high deductables which means I will get no real beneft from it.
So just like now, I will be paying for EVERYTHING out-of-pocket, yet I will have to pay something on top of that for my “covergae.’
I, and millions of others, will be worse off.
But, the insurance companies will richer for it.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:09 pmHow about a federal ban on stupid?
Bill0 the sexual predator, deviant, pervert falafel sicko needs another lawsuit against him….
…just to keep him busy.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:09 pmWell, now I can drive 80 mph where ever I go cause Bill-O said government cant make me do anything.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:14 pmmaria in pgh, then I guess you are saying that you think that we should do nothing since you don’t seem to be able to see beyond your nose and understand that all of your complaints are what this reform is about.
Stop whining and pay attention.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:14 pmmaria in pgh says
August 26th, 2009 at 11:58 am
NO MANDATE WITHOUT A PUBLIC OPTION
_____________________________________________________________
I’d add to that, NO MANDATE IF PRIVATE INSURERS ARE STILL PERMITTED TO TURN PEOPLE AWAY.
If the young man with insulin-dependent Type 1 diabetes who just graduated from college cannot find a job with an employer who provides health insurance, can no longer be insured through his parents, and cannot get insurance from any insurer because of his pre-existing condition, what should he do?
I mean, besides get arrested for failure to comply with the mandate, and get thrown in jail where his insulin will be provided to him for free?
August 26th, 2009 at 12:17 pmFred – I think Maria’s making a very strong point, and she’s right to say that funnelling subsidies toward private insurers to pick up the slack for scaled-down premiums is far less efficient than a true public option would be (like expanding medicare).
She’s certainly not advocating doing nothing, though nothing would be better than forced enrichment of private insurers.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:18 pmBill says it is unconstitutional, it would be nice to see his law degree. Maybe he can do one of his stupid cultural quizes but answer questions himself on the constitution. Has there ever been anyone who prides himself more on ignorance…. except Beck.
When did ignorance become a point of view?
August 26th, 2009 at 12:19 pmA very concerned conservatives worries that we could become more like France:
“Did you know…sob, choke, that… in.. France, sob, they actually FORCE you to…take…a ….paid vacation!!”
August 26th, 2009 at 12:19 pmWhen I was in college in the late 60’s, the government could actually pull you out of class and send you, against your will, to fight in a jungle on the other side of the planet.
People like O’Reilly thought it was a crime to complain about something like that.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:20 pmtombaker, I did come in late and am really annoyed by the disrespect from the right on so many issues today so if I misunderstood the point I apologize to maria in pgh.
I just think that jumping to the conclusion that the public option is off the table is just that. Jumping to conculsions.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:22 pmI find this an odd approach for a wingnut to complain about. I think they’d prefer an individual mandate because it would amount to a massive giveaway to the health insurance companies.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:24 pmWhile I listen to nothing that comes out of O’Rielly’s pie-hole and I certainly wouldn’t want Megan getting worry lines over actually researching something she is talking about, I am concerned about the mandate. I remember when auto insurance became a mandate and the insurance companies all said that this would lower the cost of insurance for all. It did not and allowed them to further raise costs because now it was mandatory. A mandate, without a public option, will only benefit the insurance companies and do nothing to lower costs. Only a private option will cause them to contain and possibly lower costs to compete.
Lets do it for Teddy, Gawddamit!
August 26th, 2009 at 12:25 pmFred – I agree with you there – I’d even go so far as to say any small step will be a quantum leap forward, at the least prividing a foundation for something better in the future.
Like you, I don’t want to see our big chance to move forward undone by infighting, and by making the perfect the enemy of the good.
We just need to be careful that we don’t end up with a carefully-camouflaged Corporate Welfare Bill that pretends to benefit people like Maria and me.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:26 pmXisithrus says
August 26th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
The less you make would mean the more the private insurance folks get from government [taxpayers] and overall the cost would be more to the taxpayer, because of middlemen profiting, than a public insurance plan with no middlemen.
____________________________________________________________
Exactly. If my taxpayer money goes to help provide health insurance for those who can’t afford it (a concept I can get behind), I don’t want a lot of those tax dollars funding some CEO’s Lear Jet, summer home, and country club membership. Subsidy money going to the for-profit people is obscene.
Which is why we need a public program, where the taxpayer gets more bang for the buck. One of the many reasons.
And why am I willing to for my taxes to go toward people who can’t afford insurance? Because I’m paying for these people anyway. And I’d rather pay for them to stay well than pay for their emergency room treatments when they don’t. Furthermore, I could easily BE one of “these people” — all it takes is losing my job or my employer dropping their health benefits. It could happen to any of us.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:27 pmOk, my question is simple: If it’s unconstitutional for the government to force people to buy healthcare insurance – and at the same time provide healthcare that’s affordable – why is it constitutional for people to be forced to buy car insurance? Is it because there’s an attempt to add a government option to healthcare and there’s yet a truly affordable, maybe just my opinion, form of auto insurance?
August 26th, 2009 at 12:30 pmFred,
Apology accepted. FYI: I AM passionately for health care reform, but tombaker is spot on here:
August 26th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Mandatory car insurance is a State-to-State thing, but all States have instituted it because the Feds withhold highway funding from States without it – just like with seatbelt laws.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:33 pmWell, since O’reilly was in England in his junior year while I was in Vietnam, he might understand the power of the state a little better vs the individual and a lot better if we could have switched places.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:34 pmDaddy-O, what are you talking about. What does any of that have to do with me?
August 26th, 2009 at 12:40 pmDaddy-O – you miss my point. Doesn’t matter how good or bad the VA is. The conservatives were against its formation, as well as the GI Bill, etc. We need to hammer them on that…why do they hate our vets? See George Lakoff’s article on CommonDreams about messaging.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:53 pmXisithrus says:
I think that, ’scaled’, means ‘offset’ by government subsidizing. The less you make would mean the more the private insurance folks get from government [taxpayers] and overall the cost would be more to the taxpayer, because of middlemen profiting, than a public insurance plan with no middlemen.
That is not correct to the extent that it involves private insurance. Medicaid is a program through welfare and it already has the scaled income standards. This is funded by the federal and state governments with no private insurance involved. A mandate would put many of the uninsured in the public option or Medicaid. The only way for private insurance to get the business is to offer a better plan and cost to these people. I don’t think we are going to see much competition for the first few years because private insurance companies will need to adjust to the new laws.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:07 pmmisscoleopteramolly says:
And why am I willing to for my taxes to go toward people who can’t afford insurance? Because I’m paying for these people anyway. And I’d rather pay for them to stay well than pay for their emergency room treatments when they don’t.
This is an important point, and one which doesn’t get mentioned enough. Hospitals vastly overcharge the insured in order to make up the shortfall from providing emergency care to the uninsured. Ever wonder why a simple blood test costs hundreds of dollars? Since such a soft transfer is completely “off-book,” there are no controls whatsoever on the costs of treating the uninsured through emergency rooms. However, we do know for certain that that is the most expensive way imaginable to treat them; preventive care (i.e. insuring everybody) would be vastly cheaper.
Morality aside, the “system” (I use scare quotes because the word “system” lends too much dignity to the present sorry state of affairs) is quite simply, wasteful and a poor use of resources. The result of free market health insurance is the exact opposite that free-marketeers predict for everything else.
That is because hospitals can’t just ignore a dyign person. The only way a free market would “work” (i.e. control costs) would be if it were completely allowed to fail some people, i.e. refuse emergency treatment. Otherwise the market isn’t actually “free.”
As no decent human being would advocate simply allowing people to die when you can prevent it (I have yet to hear even a Republican advocate stacking bodies in the streets), we are forced to go in the other direction, to establish a system that covers (and therefore controls costs for) those who are presently uninsured or underinsured.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:09 pmThe wingnuts should be reminded often that they lost and they are not calling the shots. They told us after they stole the election and installed the worst president ever that elections matter. Well wingnuts, elections matter. Now take your seat at the back of the bus.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:12 pmWhere does one begin. Let’s start with the now expired military draft. How many American’s died in Vietnam because they were forced into the military via the draft? Of course O’Reilly never served in the military so I can understand how this could slip his mind, feable as it is. But what about paying income taxes, something O’Reilly is forced into doing every year. Does that not count? This list, obviously, is extensive.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:44 pmThe argument against an individual mandate has nothing to do with Constitutional issues. It clearly is not unconstitutional. For instance, in most, if not all states, you also cannot register your vehicle if you don’t have auto insurance. The argument against an individual mandate, if the public option fails to materialize, is that it is a huge profit maker for the insurance companies. With the public option, it makes sense for all the economic justification as stated: “It is difficult to imagine a law which has a more obvious economic impact than a requirement that all Americans be insured.”Without the public option, it will indeed have an obvious and negative impact.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:10 pmAs healthcare is a system of multistate mega-corporations, I don’t see why the constitutional powers for interstate commerce can’t be invoked.
And if we can’t be forced to buy anything, there are all sorts of fighter jets and tanks which I want my money back for.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:29 pmDare I guess that the name “tenther” comes from the Biblical mandate for tithing ?
May I remind these folk to render under Ceasar what is Ceasar’s ?
And as the govt can’t tell me what to do, with Labor Day coming up, I’m gonna speed down the road drunk at 100 mph and stop at the Washington Monument to retrieve the brick from it that I’ve paid for and want back. Then I’m gonna march right into the Oval Office and take back my desk.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:33 pmMapleStreet says:
Dare I guess that the name “tenther” comes from the Biblical mandate for tithing ?
Tenth Amendment, actually. I suspect they’re reading it backwards.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:23 pmThe conservative weasel’s lament, by Aaronk:
“What does any of that have to do with me?”
August 26th, 2009 at 4:35 pmMapleStreet says:
As healthcare is a system of multistate mega-corporations, I don’t see why the constitutional powers for interstate commerce can’t be invoked.
I bellieve the basis for the health care bill is the Commerce clause. The bill mandates certain things in the insurance industry which has usually the province of the states. These provisions regarding pre-existing conditions and lifetime limits are going to take precedence over any state laws.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:25 pmThe desk was a gift from Queen Victoria.
The bottom third was built with private donations so you’ll have to climb pretty high to get your share.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:09 pmRight. Because Caesar was the sovereign. But in the USA, a republic, supposedly the people are sovereign. So render unto Caesar indeed.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:12 pm“the federal government cannot force you to do or buy anything.”
Oh, just except little things like, oh….car insurance!
August 26th, 2009 at 7:27 pmaaronk says:
You are an ignorant piece of trash and a stupid punkass troll. You are so stupid you dont know your ass from an apple pie. Just STFU you monumentally stupid lying moron
August 26th, 2009 at 8:19 pmaaronk says: 79
My GOD you are stupid. The really sad part is how proud you are of your abject stupidity. Do you REALLY not know the answer to that question? REALLY? Go find a reasonably bright six year old and have him explain it to you.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:22 pmOnly the stupidest people on the planet could take this ignorant talking point seriously
August 26th, 2009 at 8:47 pmYou know, to the GOP our people in uniform are just a nice excuse. And they are to obey orders and die quietly and where nobody will see them. And once back home they can just DIE. If they talk they are traitors and even WORSE if they complain.
Curious. Hamas is perfectly willing to hide behind civilians and if they complain about being killed they are traitors and if they oppose them they deserve to die. The only ones who matter to them are those that are actively helping the cause. And only as long as they are useful.
To me they are the same thing. Criminals and Godless scum hiding behind catchphrases and propaganda. Claiming to be the people and demanding power as a God-given birthright. In reality being undeserving of the air they breathe.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:53 amWhat a bit of sophistry to suggest that forcing a person to buy health insurance is a part of the commerce clause! The same argument could be used to force you to buy a certain kind of car (I fear this is coming), perhaps even toothpaste. Whatever happened to freedom? I get the feeling that liberals want to control all our decision making.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:41 amBruce A says:
What stupidity you show. I expect nothing else from brainwashed rightwing morons like YOU. As has been pointed out we force people to buy car insurance. There really isnt any question that it is bone ignorant to claim a government health insurance is unconstitutional. Medicare and the VA are both just that government health insurances. A single payer would not be unconstitutional much less offering a public option. I am sure it is time for Rush to tell you what you think today.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:03 am