Obama Mandate vs Reagan Mandate ?? (Congress, health care, solution, insurance)

[mohawkx]

I posted this in another thread but I think it deserves it’s own place on C-D.
We are all very aware that republicans in general want to repeal HCR. Most are whooping it up with the recent circuit court ruling claiming that the mandate to purchase insurance is unconstitutional. Well I pose the following questions as food for thought.

If the mandate for all to purchase insurance is unconstitutional, then wouldn’t the mandate passed by Ronald Reagan for hospitals to treat all regardless of ability to pay be just as unconstitutional?

Since the Reagan mandate was totally unfunded, wouldn’t the constitutional solution be for congress to scrap the HCR bill and fix the Reagan Health care mandate by raising taxes to cover the cost of the Reagan Mandate?

Would the Republicans be OK with this solution? Just thinking out loud here.

[KoobleKar]

One mandate (ObamaCare) is a penalty for INACTION. That is not within the powers of Congress as stated in the Constitution.

The other is a mandate stating that you must act.

[desertdetroiter]

Originally Posted by KoobleKar

One mandate (ObamaCare) is a penalty for INACTION. That is not within the powers of Congress as stated in the Constitution.

The other is a mandate stating that you must act.

LOL....You must be double jointed from head to toe cuz that's some of the best contortionist work that i've ever read. Can't find that in a Vegas circus act.

[desertdetroiter]

Originally Posted by mohawkx

I posted this in another thread but I think it deserves it’s own place on C-D.
We are all very aware that republicans in general want to repeal HCR. Most are whooping it up with the recent circuit court ruling claiming that the mandate to purchase insurance is unconstitutional. Well I pose the following questions as food for thought.

If the mandate for all to purchase insurance is unconstitutional, then wouldn’t the mandate passed by Ronald Reagan for hospitals to treat all regardless of ability to pay be just as unconstitutional?

Since the Reagan mandate was totally unfunded, wouldn’t the constitutional solution be for congress to scrap the HCR bill and fix the Reagan Health care mandate by raising taxes to cover the cost of the Reagan Mandate?

Would the Republicans be OK with this solution? Just thinking out loud here.

I don't have an answer, but that's a GREAT question. Very thought provoking.

[mohawkx]

Originally Posted by KoobleKar

One mandate (ObamaCare) is a penalty for INACTION. That is not within the powers of Congress as stated in the Constitution.

The other is a mandate stating that you must act.

Great little two-step. But it doesn't really address the issue or answer my questions.

[KoobleKar]

Well, I'm stating what the judge stated and what he ruled on that said the Health Care Act was unconstitutional.

The people who want to say it is within the Constitution use the Commerce Clause as their justification.

However, the Commerce Clause has NEVER been used to punish anyone for INACTION or the failure to do something.

That was the basis of his ruling......so if it's beyond your scope, it's not because I'm spinning anything.

[mohawkx]

I'll make it much simpler.......

Obama Mandate........All people must purchase Health Insurance by 2014.........Unconstitutional

Ronald Reagan Mandate......All hospitals must treat all patients regardless of ability to pay.....Unconstitutional

Solution......Scrap the HCR, Raise taxes to pay for the Reagan Mandate......problem solved. Health care for all.

Let's see the Republicans dance around this one.

[geofra]

I don't believe the new crop of Republicans are as enamored of Ronald Reagan as the old guard is. One of these days he will be publicly regarded as the patron saint of RINO's.

[mohawkx]

Originally Posted by KoobleKar

Well, I'm stating what the judge stated and what he ruled on that said the Health Care Act was unconstitutional.

The people who want to say it is within the Constitution use the Commerce Clause as their justification.

However, the Commerce Clause has NEVER been used to punish anyone for INACTION or the failure to do something.

That was the basis of his ruling......so if it's beyond your scope, it's not because I'm spinning anything.

Why is it any different requiring hospitals to treat all than it is to require all to purchase insurance? What's right for the goose is right for the gander.

[KoobleKar]

Originally Posted by mohawkx

Why is it any different requiring hospitals to treat all than it is to require all to purchase insurance?

Because ONE is a mandate that punishes you for not buying something.

The other is a mandate stating that a hospital cannot discriminate on the grounds of the lack of the ability to pay for treatment.