Tenthers Grassley And Boehner Claim Mandate Unconstitutional

The key threat, of course, is the our current Supreme Court panel amounts to a kangaroo court and will rubber stamp 5-4 as unConstitutional anything that Republicans want to be ruled as unConstitutional.

I do hope that the Senator Grassley has insured his car. Most states require this. When does he propose to sue to relieve himself of this burden?

LMAO!

It should be obvious that the GOP platform on all issues is very simple: whatever Obama's for, they're agin' it.

One thing that has given me pause is that perhaps a mandate to buy Private insurance might be unconstitutional but a mandate to buy insurance from the Government run insurance (i e the Public Option) would not be unconstitutional.

It is just like Auto Insurance in many states - you are compelled to buy Auto Insurance but if you don't you are put in a Government run insurance pool and you pay a fine (which is really Premium for this government run insurance)

Of course they're idiots for bringing it up now, but this is also my main qualm with the current version of the Senate Bill.

You can not mandate a population, by penalty of fine or imprisonment, to buy a product on the private market without cost control or a supplemental alternative.

Car insurance is different, because there are alternatives to driving. It's a privilege, not a right.

Unconstitutional or Unconscionable ?

Unconstitutional? Given the party hacks who parade as principled jurists, the Supreme Court will likely declare it unconstitutional and that will be that.

However, the Unconscionable question is more urgent.

The ‘reforms’ are variously considered a sham, trivial or an
 institutionalization of the current disastrous health care system (only with 
more public subsidies to the insurance industry).

The confusion and endless gyrations evident in the plan (try reading it) are the result of trying to fit ‘reform of the system’ into the system’s current contorted, inefficient and costly contours (in other words, the plan is not a ‘reform’, but more pasting things on to a broken system).

Here’s what the people wanted when the Democrats started:

“A mere seven months ago (that would be around June 2009), The New York 
Times/CBS poll found that 72% of Americans ‘supported a government-
administered insurance plan—something like Medicare for those under 65—
that would compete for customers with private insurers.’”

From then until now, Obama has:

1. Rejected single payer; 

2. Stiff-armed the government option; 

3. Mandated individuals and families pay premiums to private sector insurers; 

4. Assured billions in tax payer subsidies for private sector insurers; 

5. Stipulated actual health care service at 80 cents of every dollar, while 
insurers can spend
20 cents of every premium dollar on lobbying, ‘sympathetic’ 
candidates, CEO bonuses, ‘administration’, fighting claims for treatment and, 
now we can add, participating on the new Federal ‘rate review’ Board.

The substance of the President’s proposal is the current costly, inefficient and 
ineffective insurance system on Federal steroids.

What Obama calls 'reform' basically keeps the current system in place, while supplementing it with taxpayers’ money in the form of mandated premium payments and Federal ‘subsidies’.

That’s no reform at all. And that is unconscionable.

I wonder, does Mr. Beutler have any authority on the subject? Citing thinkprogress.org to declare that those who say the individual mandate is unconstitutional hardly qualifies as a valid source.

What about the Washington Post weighing in with actual legal opinions that seem to indicate otherwise? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html

Don't get me wrong. Most of the time I think Grassley is an idiot. But I also think snap judgments are being made as to the veracity of the statement based on political leanings, and not the facts. There are people on the left too that believe that the individual mandate is, especially if one does not have the ability to purchase a plan from an institution other than a private, for-profit company, if not unconstitutional, then certainly immoral. Take Keith Olbermann for example.