House plans five-hour debate on healthcare repeal, WH warns veto

The Hill ^ | 7/10/12 | Pete Kasperowicz

[Nachum]

The House will hold five hours of debate on Tuesday and Wednesday on legislation that would completely repeal the 2010 healthcare law, which is being called up by Republicans in light of the Supreme Court's decision that the individual health insurance mandate is constitutional. The House Rules Committee approved a rule late Monday setting out the lengthy debate on a bill that is expected to pass with Republican support, but very little if any Democratic support. The Repeal of Obamacare Act, H.R. 6079, was formally introduced by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Monday.

[Shethink13]

Wasn't it declared Constitutional under the government's taxing power?

You are confusing the "individual mandate" with the "Affordable Health Care Act". Perhaps that explains why this keeps getting reported incorrectly. The Act itself was declared Constitutional as a tax. That was the whole controversy with Roberts - that he literally re-wrote the bill to make it work by calling the "mandate" a tax.

While Ginsberg voted with the majority, she wanted the mandate to be declared Constitutional which Roberts disagreed with, and that is why she wrote a separate opinion.

So while the entire Act was declared Constitutional, the individual mandate was not. That is the inaccuracy - might seem subtle but it really isn't.

[philman_36]

Here is the link to the decision...
@ NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS

The individual health care mandate was not declared Constitutional.

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.
He gave the government what they wanted, right?
Isn't the decision explicitly stating that the individual mandate is Constitutional under the power of Congress to “lay and collect Taxes.”?

That's why Ginsberg dissented with Roberts' opinion.
Where exactly? I've given you the link and it opens in a new tab so it's easy.

[dfwgator]

A “Dog and Pony Show” that in the end will mean absolutely nothing.

[bicyclerepair]

It will identify the traitors in the house if nothing else.

We need to know who’s who.

[philman_36]

You are confusing the "individual mandate" with the "Affordable Health Care Act".
Um...I don't think so.
Public Law 111–148 An Act Entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) IN GENERAL.— The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section (in this subsection referred to as the ‘‘requirement’’) is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2).
That is the law in question and that is the individual mandate, isn't it?

[philman_36]

Whaaaat?
I prove to be too informed so I get the silent treatment?

[llandres]

bfl

[GloriaJane]

[pepsionice]

I believe the only agenda here is to make some Democrats in very critical races declare themselves for the President, or agree with the Republicans to survive. The last thing you really want as a Representative running in an election....is to be anchored with a stupid topic that draws attention of the voters from your district.

[napscoordinator]

This whole medical insurance thing is so stupid. Just allow hospitals and doctors to turn people away if they decide not to have insurance. Simple solutions. Do people get to have a nice dinner at a resturant if they don’t have the money? No. Same thing at the hospital. If you don’t have insurance, you must prepay whatever services you desire. That is it!!!!! Damn I wish I was the President. I would not force people to get insurance, but I would not force hospitals to administer care for people who don’t have the money. Mean? Perhaps. Fiscally responsible? You bet!!!!!

[TornadoAlley3]

House Republicans have voted 30 times in the past year and a half to repeal, defund, or otherwise squash ObamaCare, with the first attempt coming just two weeks after they took control of the House last year. This week, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision on the law, the House will take up attempt No. 31: the “Repeal of ObamaCare Act”.

[Lady Lucky]

Just allow hospitals and doctors to turn people away if they decide not to have insurance.

That is precisely the solution, and it's amazing how many people have come to preclude that from any consideration. You hear of alternative plans, laws, systems...but rarely does anyone point out the entrenched flaw that is making some sort of socialism the fix.

[sergeantdave]

“but I would not force hospitals to administer care for people who don’t have the money.”

Would you also arrest and imprison the thieves and quacks who run hospitals and rip people off?

Did you know that people who pay cash are charged 200 to 300 percent more than people who use insurance? Try litigating that sometime. Hospitals charge whatever they think they can get away with. Double-billing, kickbacks and charging for services not rendered is rampant at these quack institutions.

[chris37]

Someone wake me when the house decides to do something that actually matters.

[cableguymn]

you mean a band-aid really does not cost 6 bucks?!??!

I went a couple years with out insurance. for non-emergency care I price shopped. Some where nuts (6 dollar band-aids) some where realistic. (50 cent band-aids)

it was my one trip to the ER where the doctor got it wrong and it damn near killed me and he STILL wanted 6000 dollars for his misdiagnosis.

[sergeantdave]

There is no rational and pragmatic process to sue quack hospitals. Lawyers are clueless about suing hospitals. They want a huge retainer to take the case, and I’m not about to shell out thousands to a shyster so he can acquaint himself with medical fraud at my expense.

Those familiar with the lawsuit process against hospitals work in the qui tam division of large law firms, and they won’t take individual cases unless they can make at least a high six-figure payback. The only process available is a class action lawsuit, and you need a ton of litigants for that.

The fraud division at the state attorney general’s office is a clown car accident waiting to happen.

Some people have this misbegotten notion that hospitals are run by angels whose sole purpose for existing is to comfort the ill and injured. Even conservatives fall for this stupid image of the all-caring hospital. In fact, these quack factories are run by thieving liberals who will rip you off for every penny you own.

But I mostly talk to the wall on FR. Enough.

[Grams A]

My question also. This is absolutely a no-brainer. Should take about 15 minutes. No wonder they never get anything done.

[napscoordinator]

Did you know that people who pay cash are charged 200 to 300 percent more than people who use insurance?

As long as people are offered a choice to either pay or not pay than I have no problem with this. If people don’t want to pay the prices that the hospital charges then either go somewhere else or find a witch doctor. You can’t have everything. It is bad enough we have people who go to the doctor without payment or insurance...That is what MUST stop.

[philman_36]

Still waiting for you at reply 25.

[Wordkraft]

Vote to repeal it all.

Rub his nose in it.