Hello and Welcome -- to All Sorts
.gif)
Art work by Rafael Buelna All Rights reserved
Friday, October 29, 2010
Are you an independent?
Independents should start thinking independently, especially when proposition 19 is concerned.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Medical Marijuana, From Practical to Tactical: How the debate has lost compassion
One recent report by the Rand Corporation was developed by their Rand Drug Policy Research Center. The title of the Report is called "Altered State: Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets." This report, and others that have built their arguments based on its findings, emphasize tactical reasons for thinking twice about supporting prop 19. The practical purpose for voting to pass prop 215 or providing the legal protection for citizens that use marijuana as a medication came from, compassion. The practical thing to do was to vote "YES" for prop 215 because nature provided a variety of marijuana plants that alleviated the discomforts of people with ailments. That compassionate purpose has now been replaced by, tactical reasoning, or gaining tax revenues for the state. At least, tactics, is the emphasis of these reports and in the debates over this issue. So, have Californians lost compassion? The polls indicate that support for prop 19 is holding but the narrative, which the media and the Rand Corporation prefer to repeat, is to concentrate on tactical reasoning, or collecting taxes, why? Lets get passed the obvious reason that the state needs revenue.
The titled of the report is a play on a film titled Altered States, “…a 1980 American science fiction film adaptation of a novel of the same name by playwright and screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky. Edward Jessup (William Hurt) is a university professor of abnormal psychology who, while studying schizophrenia, begins to think that our other states of consciousness are as real as our waking states. Jessup begins experimenting with sensory-deprivation using a flotation tank, and he travels to Mexico to participate in what is apparently an Ayahuasca Ceremony.”
“Banisteriopsis caapi, also known as Ayahuasca, Caapi or Yage, is a South American jungle vine of the family Malpighiaceae. It is used to prepare Ayahuasca, a decoction that has a long history of entheogenic uses as a medicine and "plant teacher" among the indigenous peoples of the Amazon Rainforest."
Marijuana --- the Rand Corps warns against listening to the "plant Teacher."
The title of the report suggests that legalization of Marijuana will alter the state of California physically and also alter our collective, civic conscious or sense of who we are as Californians, as individuals and as members of the Republic. The facts in these reports were created by information that is available to the public but not information that the DEA has or other government agencies have which may indicate alternative data. That data, if released to the public, is a security risk. When the Rand Corp creates reports like "Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence inMexico California
Rands' report "Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence inMexico California
The implication is also that the use of this herb is part of an abnormal state of being which comes from a mysterious place like the Amazon Rainforst. In other words the legalization legislation is equated to the exotic mysterious and unknown dangers one finds in the rainforst which is not a natural environment for north Americans, specifically, those citizens that did not immigrate from tropical climates. People who normally immigrate from the tropical climates are not Euro-Americans and, so, a connection is implied between prop 19 and the exotic, rituals of racially different people. This is pitting Euro-American citizens and non Euro-American citizens on a symbolic and real divide as far as this issue is concerned.
In fact, The NAACP and Latino citizen organizations are supporting legalization or prop 19 because of the disproportionate amount of members from the African-American and the Latino community who are incarcerated on marijuana related issues. From the report that Rand put out recently one would not know that tid-bit of information. The League of United Latin American Citizens of California and the NAACP held a conference where Alice Huffman said that these two communities have been disproportionately populating the prisons for “having a joint” On the other side of the legalization Sheriff Lee Baca is concerned that our youth will suffer “memory loss” and suffer other health issues. Many Cannabis clubs are against prop 19 because Cities and counties will “over regulate” the growth, distribution, and sales according to George Mull of the California Cannabis Association. (channel 7 Eyewitness News, October 12).
In equating the use of marijuana with sensory-deprivation and the inability to tell one reality from the other the authors of the Rand reports turned the use of Marijuana into the dangerous ritual of the dark, exotic, jungle other people. Kilmer and his gang of trustees sculpt a report that targets the pressure points of fiscally conservative Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party and Independents who may lean towards favoring legalization and voting for this bill but only if it served the budgetary responsibilities of the state. It may not have been an intentional targeting, but, the effects of indicating that the price of pot is going to fall by eighty percent after legalization would scare the pants off of any fiscal conservative that hoped to bring in the pot dough to fill the municipal coffers.
wants to provide a “…better understanding of how marijuana legalization in California could influence DTOs (Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations) revenues and the Violence in Mexico. We focus on gross revenues from export and distribution to wholesale markets near the southwestern U.S. border. DTOs also generate revenue from operations further down the distribution chain in the United States. It is difficult to assess how much they make from domestic (U.S.) distribution, and it is unclear how this would change post legalization because distribution would become legal only for one drug in one state.” P(3)
The problem for the Rand Corps Group or the "RCG" is that they forgot to include the possibility that DTOs also have grow houses that are within the U.S. and networked into U.S. domestic gangland operations. Not to mention that domestic gangs setup grow houses for themselves too and sell the pot they grow legitimately through pot clubs. The report assumes that DTOs and gangsters do not have the technical expertise to grow hydroponics or other indoor grown varieties: does anyone really believe that? Lets not forget that DTOs grow outdoor pot in California too: the RCG forgot that point.
The idea that indoor pot is a better medication alternative than pot grown outside is an assumption. Sinsemilla grown in the tropical and sub-tropical areas of South-America are known to be very effective at relieving individuals of their ailments. Outdoor pot grown in most places of California rivals or matches the quality of indoor pot or hybrid plants. The RCG failed to include this idea which indicates that their would continue to be a market for American outdoor Sinsemilla products.
In fact, because of the tax regulatory scheme that the RCG suggest (taxing THC levels), the incentive will shift to grow less effective pot, that looks and smells like a hi-grade but patients have to smoke twice as much or more to feel the effects. This watering down of pot is already happening. The cost to the patient will not drop while the THC levels of their medication does drop. What this leads to is the patient returning to the clubs more often because they've used up their medication/pot sooner. This gives patients the impression that they are smoking more pot to become high more often, when in fact, they are smoking more pot to taken in an effective amount of THC. This burns through their supply faster and brings the client back into the pot club to purchase the next round sooner.
Rand uses an unrealistic model of the anatopot agriculture to assess the effectiveness of Legalization
Proposition Nineteen --- or prop 19 is a “Hot button issue “ In California the bill is called the Regulate Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. The gist of the bill is as fallows,
A. It would make Marijuana legal to use for recreation but regulate and control the substance: just like Alcohol.
B. Because the U.S is the world largest consumer and one third of the citizens have used the herb for one reason or another we should start to control its use. Marijuana is healthier than alcohol and tobacco. The war on pot has failed, laws criminalizing marijuana have not worked and so laws legalizing it would put dangerous dealers out of business.
C. Money, the measure would tax pot like Alcohol and tobacco creating a flow of tax revenue for the state and create a legal regulatory framework for cultivation, distribution and sales.
Against or those apposing Prop 19 fear that the public safety is at stake or bus drivers, taxi drivers train operators, could drive under the influence on the job, employers would not be able to test for marijuana and employees could taking pot breaks. Advertising near schools, libraries and parks would send the wrong message to kids not to mention the loss of Federal grants to schools and fear that pot could be grown in backyards. If the "no on prop 19" group think, that the state can not regulate the sale and distribution of pot then their same logic pertains to the sale and distribution of beer. This same group is quick to add that citizens should not compile their problems by legalizing pot, but, that assumes that people are not already using pot who want to use pot. The Rand Corporations' report based an increase in the use of pot by calculating the increase based on an analysis of cigarette use:
“there is no truly satisfying estimate of this “total price elasticity” in the marijuana literature. For, tobacco, the total elasticity is roughly 1.5 or 2 times as large as the participation elasticity (Harris and Chan, 1999: Chaloupka and Grossman, 1996; Hu st all., 1995 Lewit and Coate, 1981). Thus, in the absence of Marijuana-specific information, we multiply our participation elasticity -0.3 by 1.75 to proxy the total elasticity. After accounting for the possible income effect, we settle on a baseline total price elasticity of -0.54. (7)
The lower price of "....pot will make kid smoke it because Marijuana is analogous to cigarettes? Cigarettes are an addictive substance while Marijuana is not and that fact is in the “marijuana literature.” (7)
The sale of Marijuana legally takes the illegal sale out of the hands of the drug dealer and the profits. Do we want people that need marijuana to buy it from drug dealers on the streets? Those individuals that currently smoke all the pot they want, because they can afford it, will not increase their use. Pot is not the addictive substance that cigarettes are. The state is not doing its job keeping beer away from kids but citizens decided long ago that it was up to the individual and their family to make the choice to stay away from using these substances. For this reason prohibition of alcohol was overturned: violence was reduced and taxes were collected.
Opponents of prop 19 fear that people will be driving stoned and citizens are taking a tremendous risk because of the loopholes, Yes, the loopholes! This law is full of holes! Haven't you heard?
The titled of the report is a play on a film titled Altered States, “…a 1980 American science fiction film adaptation of a novel of the same name by playwright and screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky. Edward Jessup (William Hurt) is a university professor of abnormal psychology who, while studying schizophrenia, begins to think that our other states of consciousness are as real as our waking states. Jessup begins experimenting with sensory-deprivation using a flotation tank, and he travels to Mexico to participate in what is apparently an Ayahuasca Ceremony.”
“Banisteriopsis caapi, also known as Ayahuasca, Caapi or Yage, is a South American jungle vine of the family Malpighiaceae. It is used to prepare Ayahuasca, a decoction that has a long history of entheogenic uses as a medicine and "plant teacher" among the indigenous peoples of the Amazon Rainforest."
Marijuana --- the Rand Corps warns against listening to the "plant Teacher."
The title of the report suggests that legalization of Marijuana will alter the state of California physically and also alter our collective, civic conscious or sense of who we are as Californians, as individuals and as members of the Republic. The facts in these reports were created by information that is available to the public but not information that the DEA has or other government agencies have which may indicate alternative data. That data, if released to the public, is a security risk. When the Rand Corp creates reports like "Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in
Rands' report "Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in
The implication is also that the use of this herb is part of an abnormal state of being which comes from a mysterious place like the Amazon Rainforst. In other words the legalization legislation is equated to the exotic mysterious and unknown dangers one finds in the rainforst which is not a natural environment for north Americans, specifically, those citizens that did not immigrate from tropical climates. People who normally immigrate from the tropical climates are not Euro-Americans and, so, a connection is implied between prop 19 and the exotic, rituals of racially different people. This is pitting Euro-American citizens and non Euro-American citizens on a symbolic and real divide as far as this issue is concerned.
In fact, The NAACP and Latino citizen organizations are supporting legalization or prop 19 because of the disproportionate amount of members from the African-American and the Latino community who are incarcerated on marijuana related issues. From the report that Rand put out recently one would not know that tid-bit of information. The League of United Latin American Citizens of California and the NAACP held a conference where Alice Huffman said that these two communities have been disproportionately populating the prisons for “having a joint” On the other side of the legalization Sheriff Lee Baca is concerned that our youth will suffer “memory loss” and suffer other health issues. Many Cannabis clubs are against prop 19 because Cities and counties will “over regulate” the growth, distribution, and sales according to George Mull of the California Cannabis Association. (channel 7 Eyewitness News, October 12).
In equating the use of marijuana with sensory-deprivation and the inability to tell one reality from the other the authors of the Rand reports turned the use of Marijuana into the dangerous ritual of the dark, exotic, jungle other people. Kilmer and his gang of trustees sculpt a report that targets the pressure points of fiscally conservative Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party and Independents who may lean towards favoring legalization and voting for this bill but only if it served the budgetary responsibilities of the state. It may not have been an intentional targeting, but, the effects of indicating that the price of pot is going to fall by eighty percent after legalization would scare the pants off of any fiscal conservative that hoped to bring in the pot dough to fill the municipal coffers.
The chart below was the model of the world of post legalization of marijuana, its farming, processing, and distribution, as imagined by Kilmer and crew, but also sets a framework for how California leadership should think of the process of legalization. The model is based on the imagined sales of a grow house – like seen in the popular HBO program “Weeds” – where a grower fills the house with pot plants. The report that Rand Corp just released
The problem for the Rand Corps Group or the "RCG" is that they forgot to include the possibility that DTOs also have grow houses that are within the U.S. and networked into U.S. domestic gangland operations. Not to mention that domestic gangs setup grow houses for themselves too and sell the pot they grow legitimately through pot clubs. The report assumes that DTOs and gangsters do not have the technical expertise to grow hydroponics or other indoor grown varieties: does anyone really believe that? Lets not forget that DTOs grow outdoor pot in California too: the RCG forgot that point.
The idea that indoor pot is a better medication alternative than pot grown outside is an assumption. Sinsemilla grown in the tropical and sub-tropical areas of South-America are known to be very effective at relieving individuals of their ailments. Outdoor pot grown in most places of California rivals or matches the quality of indoor pot or hybrid plants. The RCG failed to include this idea which indicates that their would continue to be a market for American outdoor Sinsemilla products.
In fact, because of the tax regulatory scheme that the RCG suggest (taxing THC levels), the incentive will shift to grow less effective pot, that looks and smells like a hi-grade but patients have to smoke twice as much or more to feel the effects. This watering down of pot is already happening. The cost to the patient will not drop while the THC levels of their medication does drop. What this leads to is the patient returning to the clubs more often because they've used up their medication/pot sooner. This gives patients the impression that they are smoking more pot to become high more often, when in fact, they are smoking more pot to taken in an effective amount of THC. This burns through their supply faster and brings the client back into the pot club to purchase the next round sooner.
Rand uses an unrealistic model of the anatopot agriculture to assess the effectiveness of Legalization
Lets look at the anatomy of the debate as of this date.
A. It would make Marijuana legal to use for recreation but regulate and control the substance: just like Alcohol.
B. Because the U.S is the world largest consumer and one third of the citizens have used the herb for one reason or another we should start to control its use. Marijuana is healthier than alcohol and tobacco. The war on pot has failed, laws criminalizing marijuana have not worked and so laws legalizing it would put dangerous dealers out of business.
C. Money, the measure would tax pot like Alcohol and tobacco creating a flow of tax revenue for the state and create a legal regulatory framework for cultivation, distribution and sales.
Against or those apposing Prop 19 fear that the public safety is at stake or bus drivers, taxi drivers train operators, could drive under the influence on the job, employers would not be able to test for marijuana and employees could taking pot breaks. Advertising near schools, libraries and parks would send the wrong message to kids not to mention the loss of Federal grants to schools and fear that pot could be grown in backyards. If the "no on prop 19" group think, that the state can not regulate the sale and distribution of pot then their same logic pertains to the sale and distribution of beer. This same group is quick to add that citizens should not compile their problems by legalizing pot, but, that assumes that people are not already using pot who want to use pot. The Rand Corporations' report based an increase in the use of pot by calculating the increase based on an analysis of cigarette use:
“there is no truly satisfying estimate of this “total price elasticity” in the marijuana literature. For, tobacco, the total elasticity is roughly 1.5 or 2 times as large as the participation elasticity (Harris and Chan, 1999: Chaloupka and Grossman, 1996; Hu st all., 1995 Lewit and Coate, 1981). Thus, in the absence of Marijuana-specific information, we multiply our participation elasticity -0.3 by 1.75 to proxy the total elasticity. After accounting for the possible income effect, we settle on a baseline total price elasticity of -0.54. (7)
The lower price of "....pot will make kid smoke it because Marijuana is analogous to cigarettes? Cigarettes are an addictive substance while Marijuana is not and that fact is in the “marijuana literature.” (7)
The sale of Marijuana legally takes the illegal sale out of the hands of the drug dealer and the profits. Do we want people that need marijuana to buy it from drug dealers on the streets? Those individuals that currently smoke all the pot they want, because they can afford it, will not increase their use. Pot is not the addictive substance that cigarettes are. The state is not doing its job keeping beer away from kids but citizens decided long ago that it was up to the individual and their family to make the choice to stay away from using these substances. For this reason prohibition of alcohol was overturned: violence was reduced and taxes were collected.
Opponents of prop 19 fear that people will be driving stoned and citizens are taking a tremendous risk because of the loopholes, Yes, the loopholes! This law is full of holes! Haven't you heard?
Monday, June 28, 2010
Wanted For Murder -- Dead or Alive
Update -- regarding the murder of Mathew (Mateo) Benjamin Butcher.
Wanted for murder. $200.00 (two hundred dollars) for information regarding the murder of Matt Butcher. If anyone wants to add to this amount , here is what you do first.
Follow this link to the “Ask the Mayor” page and ask him:
1. Why did you shrink the Number of pot dispensaries considering that it was foreseeable that a concentrated number of clubs, with concentrated amounts of cash would increase the chances that these clubs would become targets of crime?
2. Why do you not understand that legal pot means lower prices and that means people on limited incomes can save money, and buy more stuff to make the economy go round and round?
3. Will concentrating the pot clubs in Pacoima, California assure a steady market for distributing Gangster pot?
4. Are you protecting the pot market for gangsters?
5. Why can’t you see that legal pot means that renters and home owners can grow their own pot and/or that legal marijuana farmers, processors, and distributors will put an end to dangerous underground grow houses that are currently under the control of gangsters?
6. Don’t you think that it is ridiculous that pot clubs are blamed for an increase in crime but liquor stores are not?
When he fails to answer your questions then email me at rafaelbuelna2003@yahoo.com and tell me the amount you want to donate and I will keep names confidential and post the increase in the reward as the money comes.
There will be vigil at Eagle Rock High School on Wednesday at 8 p.m. I attended the candle light vigil and people called for the city of Los Angles to put up a reward but I have heard nothing about that happening or not.
There is also a memorial fund starting which people are welcome to donate and the link is at ktla.com. I am throwing in $200.00 of my money to start the reward that I will pay to anyone that gives me information that will lead to the capture of five brutal killers roaming the streets of Los Angles. California who killed, executed Mateo Butcher. Just post the information anonymously if you want.
RafaelBuelna2003@yahoo.com
Wanted for murder. $200.00 (two hundred dollars) for information regarding the murder of Matt Butcher. If anyone wants to add to this amount , here is what you do first.
Follow this link to the “Ask the Mayor” page and ask him:
1. Why did you shrink the Number of pot dispensaries considering that it was foreseeable that a concentrated number of clubs, with concentrated amounts of cash would increase the chances that these clubs would become targets of crime?
2. Why do you not understand that legal pot means lower prices and that means people on limited incomes can save money, and buy more stuff to make the economy go round and round?
3. Will concentrating the pot clubs in Pacoima, California assure a steady market for distributing Gangster pot?
4. Are you protecting the pot market for gangsters?
5. Why can’t you see that legal pot means that renters and home owners can grow their own pot and/or that legal marijuana farmers, processors, and distributors will put an end to dangerous underground grow houses that are currently under the control of gangsters?
6. Don’t you think that it is ridiculous that pot clubs are blamed for an increase in crime but liquor stores are not?
When he fails to answer your questions then email me at rafaelbuelna2003@yahoo.com and tell me the amount you want to donate and I will keep names confidential and post the increase in the reward as the money comes.
There will be vigil at Eagle Rock High School on Wednesday at 8 p.m. I attended the candle light vigil and people called for the city of Los Angles to put up a reward but I have heard nothing about that happening or not.
There is also a memorial fund starting which people are welcome to donate and the link is at ktla.com. I am throwing in $200.00 of my money to start the reward that I will pay to anyone that gives me information that will lead to the capture of five brutal killers roaming the streets of Los Angles. California who killed, executed Mateo Butcher. Just post the information anonymously if you want.
RafaelBuelna2003@yahoo.com
Friday, June 25, 2010
Wanted Dead or Alive
Wanted Dead or Alive!
A reward is being collected for the person/s who bring to justice the killers of Mathew Benjamin Butcher. The reward will be paid whether the four killers are dead or alive.
The murderer of Mathew Benjamin Butcher needs to be brought to justice for the sake of his memory, his family and for the work he involved himself with. Matt was a kind person who helped bring pot to those of us who need to use it. Gansters are killing anyone who do not sell marijuana for their crimal network.
There is some pot smoker out there in Los Angeles California who knows something about this murder.
Yesterday a good man was gunned down in cold blood named Matthew Benjamin Butcher, 27, of Los Angeles. Matt worked for a Marijuana dispensary called The Higher Path on Sunset Blvd and when ever I stepped into the pot club he greeted me with kindness and was always ready to chat, hangout, and sell me a great bag of pot.
In fact here is the link to the article that also discusses the other two victims of this crime spree. Let me make this short -- Matt was murdered! Who did it?
Was this just a robbery gone wrong? The use of a knife and ransacking the place indicates a personal and passionate attacker. Was this an execution by gangsters that want to control medical pot?
The club on Sunset had security cameras but the police stated no video was available?
Join me tonight in front of The Higher Path. To remember Matt and the other victims tonight.
But help me collect money to put up a reword for information leading up to the capture of those who murdered Mathew Benjamin Butcher. Help me Los Angeles make an example of these four killers. Send a message to gangsters, that if you kill us, we will hunt you down. Bring me their heads L.A.
Rafael Buelna
A reward is being collected for the person/s who bring to justice the killers of Mathew Benjamin Butcher. The reward will be paid whether the four killers are dead or alive.
The murderer of Mathew Benjamin Butcher needs to be brought to justice for the sake of his memory, his family and for the work he involved himself with. Matt was a kind person who helped bring pot to those of us who need to use it. Gansters are killing anyone who do not sell marijuana for their crimal network.
There is some pot smoker out there in Los Angeles California who knows something about this murder.
Yesterday a good man was gunned down in cold blood named Matthew Benjamin Butcher, 27, of Los Angeles. Matt worked for a Marijuana dispensary called The Higher Path on Sunset Blvd and when ever I stepped into the pot club he greeted me with kindness and was always ready to chat, hangout, and sell me a great bag of pot.
In fact here is the link to the article that also discusses the other two victims of this crime spree. Let me make this short -- Matt was murdered! Who did it?
Was this just a robbery gone wrong? The use of a knife and ransacking the place indicates a personal and passionate attacker. Was this an execution by gangsters that want to control medical pot?
The club on Sunset had security cameras but the police stated no video was available?
Join me tonight in front of The Higher Path. To remember Matt and the other victims tonight.
But help me collect money to put up a reword for information leading up to the capture of those who murdered Mathew Benjamin Butcher. Help me Los Angeles make an example of these four killers. Send a message to gangsters, that if you kill us, we will hunt you down. Bring me their heads L.A.
Rafael Buelna
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
A creepy Thing
OK, I just saw Kate Gosselin from John and Kate plus Eight dance on dancing with the Stars. The creepy part happened when Kate runs up to the camera for an extreme close up and it lasts too long.
I am sure you can find it on YouTube if you want to see creepy that is.
Rafael Buelna
I am sure you can find it on YouTube if you want to see creepy that is.
Rafael Buelna
Monday, March 29, 2010
Power, Expansion and Health Reform
(Click the title to read a 2008 Government study of the limits to Congressional Power)
If your interested in the politics of the United States for the next few months or at least until November then read me out. Their are powers reserved for Congress and those are enumerated in the constitution all others belong to the states. The Supreme Court has no precedent for legislation that, like the new health insurance bill, forces a citizen to purchase a product from a private vender. The problem is not the new benefits that the health care bill promises nor the costs, in my opinion, but the possible expansion of powers. Specifically worrisome is the ability to legislate inactivity because a connection can be made to interstate commerce. This is not like making every American donate to their social security retirement plan because that legislation was created via powers enumerated in the constitution for Congress, like the power to wage war, tax etc. Keep in mind that difference between enumerated powers and an expansive interpretation of enumerated powers. States can create mandates but when Congress reaches out to mandate or give incentive it must reach using a tool called the commerce clause: Congress must justify every use of this tool.
It is my contention that progressives, liberals and even well intended conservatives that assisted in passing (H.R. 3590) or the health care reform bill are trapped within a paradigm but what is needed now is a paradigm shift and quickly. This path to health care reform is leading to an expansion of powers for Congress that in the future could be dangerous for individual rights. A professor once showed me an image but this image appeared in a autostereogram (click here to see a few of these images on line) which at first glance was difficult to identify. In that image there appeared a random assortment of black and white dotes along with black and white splotches which all appeared randomly placed. Without the proper viewing technique it was not easy to see the image of a Dalmatian which the professor pointed out to the class. Once a person has seen the image the viewer can never go back or they cannot un-see the image. So what follows is a different way of looking at the picture of health care reform or insurance reform.
The issue of mandating health care or penalizing individuals for not participating is not an issue that is going away soon considering cases have already been filed in federal courts. There are plenty of good hearted people that want this issue to go away or are brushing it off as silly but take a closer look and consider what could happen if the Supreme Court decides to hear those cases. The high court could decide that Congress has over reached its powers. The issue is not whether the republicans are hypocrites for filing law suits against the new mandates to purchase health insurance. After all the GOP first brought up this concept of “mandating” the purchase of health care insurance from a private entity years ago during their fight against the Clintons “Hilary Care” in the early 1990s.
The issue is whether Congress can regulate inactivity using the Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. In United States v. Five Gambling Devices, the court stated that "The principle is old and deeply imbedded in our jurisprudence that this Court will construe a statute in a manner that requires decision of serious constitutional questions only if the statutory language leaves no reasonable alternative". The new health care bill mandates purchasing insurance from private venders without a reasonable alternative like a public option or not buying insurance at all which simply means the court just might hear the cases.
Facts. Congress has passed a bill (H.R. 3590) and this new law mandates all citizens to purchase health care coverage from a private insurance company but can only purchase a policy from an insurance company specific for their state. Citizens that refuse to buy insurance are penalized with a fine which is collected by the IRS who will investigate everyone on a monthly bases to assure they comply.
ISSUE -- Does congress have the power to regulate inactivity or does mandating that an individual purchase insurance from a private insurance company exceed the powers granted to Congress by the Interstate Commerce Clause? Is a mandate to buy insurance from a private vender an expansion of power justifiable as a noble purpose?
Rule -- 1 Article one section eight of the constitution states that
“Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; --- To borrow money on the credit of the United States; --- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes…”
In United States v. Lopez the court pointed out that there are three broad categories of activity that Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause: 1. the channels of interstate commerce, 2. the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, and 3. activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce
Rule -- 2 The tenth amendment of the U.S constitution states that all powers not delegated to the United States Federal government are reserved to the states.
Analysis -- In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court upheld that:
"[E]ven if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as `direct' or `indirect.' " Id., at 125. The Wickard Court emphasized that although the farmers own contribution to the demand for wheat may have been trivial by itself, that was not "enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial." Id., at 127-128.
So, what is happening here is that the farmer was engaged in an activity or he grew and processed wheat for sale and for his own use, the activity was in the physical work. Not buying wheat on the market for his family is not the inactivity that the court was granting congress the power to regulate. Rather the court referred to the activity of growing and processing the extra wheat as that activity which led to not buying wheat on the market. What is crucial to understand here is that it is activity or growing and processing extra wheat which is at issue. If many farmers grew extra wheat for thier own needs and so did not purchase their needs on the market they would cumalitivly effect comerrece.
When an individual is not participating in the health care plan there is not an activity that substantially effects commerce. The individual just does not have health insurance which is unlike the wheat farmer who had his home grown wheat. The farmer supplies his needs at home and does not buy the products on the market which would have an exponential effect if many farmers were involved. The alternative is not to grow the private wheat and purchase on the market but here the alternative is just to take a personal chance. Automobile insurance is different because the person takes a chance with the lives of other people when they drive. In United States v. Lopez, the “…Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, first defined the nature of Congress' commerce power in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 189-190 (1824): "Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse…” Not wanting to participate in the new health care plan is hardly “intercourse.” There are many people that can afford health insurance but do not purchase a policy and just pay their medical bills. How are people that choose to pay their medical bills having a negative effect on interstate commerce and was that what congress intended?
Also in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) the court stated:
“But even these modern era precedents which have expanded congressional power under the Commerce Clause confirm that this power is subject to outer limits. In Jones & Laughlin Steel, the Court warned that the scope of the interstate commerce power "must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended so as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government."
So, the court finds it important to respect the idea that the constitution wants to limit the federal governments power and the power of states which keeps a distinction between them both. One very important way to do this is by defining “commerce.” The word commerce includes the idea of trade and in order to trade something requires activity. This means that inactivity is too weakly associated with trade and so weakly associated with commerce. Otherwise Congress is asking to regulate things that do not happen in interstate commerce. In Lopez “…our case law has not been clear whether an activity must "affect" or "substantially affect" interstate commerce in order to be within Congress' power to regulate it under the Commerce Clause... the Court has never declared that "Congress may use a relatively trivial impact on commerce as an excuse for broad general regulation of state or private activities. We conclude, consistent with the great weight of our case law, that the proper test requires an analysis of whether the regulated activity "substantially affects" interstate commerce.”
So, lets consider the power of Congress (look under “rule 1: above for the three criteria) to enact a mandate to buy insurance from a private vender in relation to the concept of “substantially affects” commerce. The first two categories of authority may be quickly disposed of because the health care bill is not justified as a regulation of the use of the channels of interstate commerce, nor is it an attempt to prohibit the interstate transportation of a commodity through the channels of commerce; nor can the bill be justified as a regulation by which Congress has sought to protect an instrumentality of interstate commerce or a thing in interstate commerce. Thus, if the mandates are to be sustained, it must be because the bill falls under the third category as a regulation of an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce.
In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court upheld that "[E]ven if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce …” The key word in the phrase above is activity. People that do not have health insurance and then go to emergency rooms for assistance cost tax payers who pay for these services. The public seeks relief from these costs and claims a substantial effect on interstate commerce is occurring which justifies an increase of power to congress. However choosing to mandate hospitals to help the uninsured is just that a choice that the citizens made because they thought that was important. This was a very noble endeavor but now that the bill or costs are getting too expensive, Congress seeks to alleviate the cost of a new project it chose to start. Again, how does a citizen that chooses to pay for their own medical bills negatively effect commerce?
The mandate to purchase insurance is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. The high court might not sustain the mandates under cases, as in Lopez, “…upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce… In United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971), the Court interpreted former 18 U.S.C. § 1202(a), which made it a crime for a felon to "receiv[e], posses[s], or transpor[t] in commerce or affecting commerce . . . any firearm." 404 U. S., at 337. The Court interpreted the possession component of §1202(a) to require an additional nexus to interstate commerce both because the statute was ambiguous and because "unless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal state balance." Id., at 349
The Governments’ contention, is that the mandates are valid because non compliance at the local level does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce. The Government argues that not purchasing insurance may results in emergency room visits and that can be expected to affect the functioning of the national economy in two ways. First, the costs are substantial, and, through the mechanism of insurance, those costs are spread throughout the population. Second a healthy population will lead to a healthy economy. The Government, under its "costs of non participation" reasoning, could regulate not only purchasing health insurance, but all inactivity that might lead to being unhealthy, regardless of how tenuously they relate to interstate commerce. Similarly, under the Government's "national productivity" reasoning, Congress could regulate any activity that it found was related to the economic productivity of individual citizens. As said in Lopez “Under the theories that the Government presents" in support of its mandates, "it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if the Government's arguments are accepted, it is difficult to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.”
As long as “…Congress' authority is limited to those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and so long as those enumerated powers are interpreted as having judicially enforceable outer limits, congressional legislation under the Commerce Clause always will engender "legal uncertainty" as Chief Justice Marshall stated in McCulloch v. Maryland. The ability to legislate inactivity is beyond enforceable outer limits.
When an individual pays their medical bills, out of pocket, it is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantially negative affect on interstate commerce which Congress intended to avoid. Not participating in the new health care plan is less an activity that effects interstate commerce than it is an activity that only effects a health care statute.
The Constitution's enumeration of powers "presuppose something not enumerated", (Gibbons v. Ogden) and that envisions a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local.
Conclusion. No. Health care insurance is a noble cause but not connected enough or tangentially related to commerce and so does not justify an expansion of congressional powers to regulate the inactivity of an individual. This legislation significantly changes the federal and state balance of power which was unintended.
Many aspects of this insurance reform bill are very important and needed but they do not justify an expansion of power that can easily be foreseen as a tool that could be misused in the future. Our collective euphoric feeling for having passed health insurance reform should not blind us to the danger that an expansion of power like this could mean for our future.
The GOP is contending that they wish to comply with the constitution while lowering premiums and that they intend to draft the replacement bill to comply with the guidance of the Supreme Court, that is, after that body hears a few cases on the issue of “mandates,“ Click here to read what Politico had to say about the mandates. Law professor, Randy E. Barnett, asked the same question
“Can Congress really require that every person purchase health insurance from a private company or face a penalty? The answer lies in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states." Historically, insurance contracts were not considered commerce, which referred to trade and carriage of merchandise. That's why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states. But the Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of "economic" activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. The key is that those activities substantially affect interstate commerce, and that's how the court would probably view the regulation of health insurance.
"But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. Regulating the auto industry or paying "cash for clunkers" is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. Even during World War II, the federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds. If you choose to drive a car, then maybe you can be made to buy insurance against the possibility of inflicting harm on others. But making you buy insurance merely because you are alive is a claim of power from which many Americans instinctively shrink. Senate Republicans made this objection, and it was defeated on a party-line vote, but it will return.”
That analysis is part of a longer post titled “The individual mandate.” If the mandate is stricken by the court as over reaching the bill goes back through the Senate and the House of representatives. Without a mandate to purchase insurance, this will make the insurance companies vulnerable because H.R. 3590 prohibits denying coverage to children and later adults but without a mandate people will only buy insurance when they’re sick or ill. Insurance companies will not have enough individuals paying into the system but will find themselves confronting and challenging their legal obligation to accept all applicants with preexisting condition which is going to lead to even more cases filed with the courts. Without this mandate, the insurance industry would declare a deal breaker. If people are not forced to participate and fined for not doing so the pool of resources shrinks and the system can not afford to pay for the patients with preexisting conditions.
Most laws are crafted to withstand constitutional scrutiny but that does not mean that the Supreme Court agrees. What the drafters of the health care bill failed to consider was that an increase of such power would be based on criteria that can reasonably be foreseen as a possible hazard to other personal rights, creates an imbalance of power by expanding a centralized government, and obliterates any outer limit to the commerce clause
Including a n opt-out option, or Public Option or the ability of purchasing out of state policies may have saved this bill from being undercut by the Supreme Court becuase it over reaches congressional power.
Rafael Buelna
If your interested in the politics of the United States for the next few months or at least until November then read me out. Their are powers reserved for Congress and those are enumerated in the constitution all others belong to the states. The Supreme Court has no precedent for legislation that, like the new health insurance bill, forces a citizen to purchase a product from a private vender. The problem is not the new benefits that the health care bill promises nor the costs, in my opinion, but the possible expansion of powers. Specifically worrisome is the ability to legislate inactivity because a connection can be made to interstate commerce. This is not like making every American donate to their social security retirement plan because that legislation was created via powers enumerated in the constitution for Congress, like the power to wage war, tax etc. Keep in mind that difference between enumerated powers and an expansive interpretation of enumerated powers. States can create mandates but when Congress reaches out to mandate or give incentive it must reach using a tool called the commerce clause: Congress must justify every use of this tool.
It is my contention that progressives, liberals and even well intended conservatives that assisted in passing (H.R. 3590) or the health care reform bill are trapped within a paradigm but what is needed now is a paradigm shift and quickly. This path to health care reform is leading to an expansion of powers for Congress that in the future could be dangerous for individual rights. A professor once showed me an image but this image appeared in a autostereogram (click here to see a few of these images on line) which at first glance was difficult to identify. In that image there appeared a random assortment of black and white dotes along with black and white splotches which all appeared randomly placed. Without the proper viewing technique it was not easy to see the image of a Dalmatian which the professor pointed out to the class. Once a person has seen the image the viewer can never go back or they cannot un-see the image. So what follows is a different way of looking at the picture of health care reform or insurance reform.
“don’t worry the fines are really taxes” or “if a state can use mandates so can the federal government.” Quotes from The Media
The issue of mandating health care or penalizing individuals for not participating is not an issue that is going away soon considering cases have already been filed in federal courts. There are plenty of good hearted people that want this issue to go away or are brushing it off as silly but take a closer look and consider what could happen if the Supreme Court decides to hear those cases. The high court could decide that Congress has over reached its powers. The issue is not whether the republicans are hypocrites for filing law suits against the new mandates to purchase health insurance. After all the GOP first brought up this concept of “mandating” the purchase of health care insurance from a private entity years ago during their fight against the Clintons “Hilary Care” in the early 1990s.
The issue is whether Congress can regulate inactivity using the Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. In United States v. Five Gambling Devices, the court stated that "The principle is old and deeply imbedded in our jurisprudence that this Court will construe a statute in a manner that requires decision of serious constitutional questions only if the statutory language leaves no reasonable alternative". The new health care bill mandates purchasing insurance from private venders without a reasonable alternative like a public option or not buying insurance at all which simply means the court just might hear the cases.
Facts. Congress has passed a bill (H.R. 3590) and this new law mandates all citizens to purchase health care coverage from a private insurance company but can only purchase a policy from an insurance company specific for their state. Citizens that refuse to buy insurance are penalized with a fine which is collected by the IRS who will investigate everyone on a monthly bases to assure they comply.
ISSUE -- Does congress have the power to regulate inactivity or does mandating that an individual purchase insurance from a private insurance company exceed the powers granted to Congress by the Interstate Commerce Clause? Is a mandate to buy insurance from a private vender an expansion of power justifiable as a noble purpose?
Rule -- 1 Article one section eight of the constitution states that
“Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; --- To borrow money on the credit of the United States; --- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes…”
In United States v. Lopez the court pointed out that there are three broad categories of activity that Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause: 1. the channels of interstate commerce, 2. the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, and 3. activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce
Rule -- 2 The tenth amendment of the U.S constitution states that all powers not delegated to the United States Federal government are reserved to the states.
Analysis -- In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court upheld that:
"[E]ven if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as `direct' or `indirect.' " Id., at 125. The Wickard Court emphasized that although the farmers own contribution to the demand for wheat may have been trivial by itself, that was not "enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial." Id., at 127-128.
So, what is happening here is that the farmer was engaged in an activity or he grew and processed wheat for sale and for his own use, the activity was in the physical work. Not buying wheat on the market for his family is not the inactivity that the court was granting congress the power to regulate. Rather the court referred to the activity of growing and processing the extra wheat as that activity which led to not buying wheat on the market. What is crucial to understand here is that it is activity or growing and processing extra wheat which is at issue. If many farmers grew extra wheat for thier own needs and so did not purchase their needs on the market they would cumalitivly effect comerrece.
When an individual is not participating in the health care plan there is not an activity that substantially effects commerce. The individual just does not have health insurance which is unlike the wheat farmer who had his home grown wheat. The farmer supplies his needs at home and does not buy the products on the market which would have an exponential effect if many farmers were involved. The alternative is not to grow the private wheat and purchase on the market but here the alternative is just to take a personal chance. Automobile insurance is different because the person takes a chance with the lives of other people when they drive. In United States v. Lopez, the “…Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, first defined the nature of Congress' commerce power in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 189-190 (1824): "Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse…” Not wanting to participate in the new health care plan is hardly “intercourse.” There are many people that can afford health insurance but do not purchase a policy and just pay their medical bills. How are people that choose to pay their medical bills having a negative effect on interstate commerce and was that what congress intended?
Also in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) the court stated:
“But even these modern era precedents which have expanded congressional power under the Commerce Clause confirm that this power is subject to outer limits. In Jones & Laughlin Steel, the Court warned that the scope of the interstate commerce power "must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended so as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government."
So, the court finds it important to respect the idea that the constitution wants to limit the federal governments power and the power of states which keeps a distinction between them both. One very important way to do this is by defining “commerce.” The word commerce includes the idea of trade and in order to trade something requires activity. This means that inactivity is too weakly associated with trade and so weakly associated with commerce. Otherwise Congress is asking to regulate things that do not happen in interstate commerce. In Lopez “…our case law has not been clear whether an activity must "affect" or "substantially affect" interstate commerce in order to be within Congress' power to regulate it under the Commerce Clause... the Court has never declared that "Congress may use a relatively trivial impact on commerce as an excuse for broad general regulation of state or private activities. We conclude, consistent with the great weight of our case law, that the proper test requires an analysis of whether the regulated activity "substantially affects" interstate commerce.”
So, lets consider the power of Congress (look under “rule 1: above for the three criteria) to enact a mandate to buy insurance from a private vender in relation to the concept of “substantially affects” commerce. The first two categories of authority may be quickly disposed of because the health care bill is not justified as a regulation of the use of the channels of interstate commerce, nor is it an attempt to prohibit the interstate transportation of a commodity through the channels of commerce; nor can the bill be justified as a regulation by which Congress has sought to protect an instrumentality of interstate commerce or a thing in interstate commerce. Thus, if the mandates are to be sustained, it must be because the bill falls under the third category as a regulation of an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce.
In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court upheld that "[E]ven if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce …” The key word in the phrase above is activity. People that do not have health insurance and then go to emergency rooms for assistance cost tax payers who pay for these services. The public seeks relief from these costs and claims a substantial effect on interstate commerce is occurring which justifies an increase of power to congress. However choosing to mandate hospitals to help the uninsured is just that a choice that the citizens made because they thought that was important. This was a very noble endeavor but now that the bill or costs are getting too expensive, Congress seeks to alleviate the cost of a new project it chose to start. Again, how does a citizen that chooses to pay for their own medical bills negatively effect commerce?
The mandate to purchase insurance is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. The high court might not sustain the mandates under cases, as in Lopez, “…upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce… In United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971), the Court interpreted former 18 U.S.C. § 1202(a), which made it a crime for a felon to "receiv[e], posses[s], or transpor[t] in commerce or affecting commerce . . . any firearm." 404 U. S., at 337. The Court interpreted the possession component of §1202(a) to require an additional nexus to interstate commerce both because the statute was ambiguous and because "unless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal state balance." Id., at 349
The Governments’ contention, is that the mandates are valid because non compliance at the local level does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce. The Government argues that not purchasing insurance may results in emergency room visits and that can be expected to affect the functioning of the national economy in two ways. First, the costs are substantial, and, through the mechanism of insurance, those costs are spread throughout the population. Second a healthy population will lead to a healthy economy. The Government, under its "costs of non participation" reasoning, could regulate not only purchasing health insurance, but all inactivity that might lead to being unhealthy, regardless of how tenuously they relate to interstate commerce. Similarly, under the Government's "national productivity" reasoning, Congress could regulate any activity that it found was related to the economic productivity of individual citizens. As said in Lopez “Under the theories that the Government presents" in support of its mandates, "it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if the Government's arguments are accepted, it is difficult to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.”
As long as “…Congress' authority is limited to those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and so long as those enumerated powers are interpreted as having judicially enforceable outer limits, congressional legislation under the Commerce Clause always will engender "legal uncertainty" as Chief Justice Marshall stated in McCulloch v. Maryland. The ability to legislate inactivity is beyond enforceable outer limits.
When an individual pays their medical bills, out of pocket, it is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantially negative affect on interstate commerce which Congress intended to avoid. Not participating in the new health care plan is less an activity that effects interstate commerce than it is an activity that only effects a health care statute.
The Constitution's enumeration of powers "presuppose something not enumerated", (Gibbons v. Ogden) and that envisions a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local.
Conclusion. No. Health care insurance is a noble cause but not connected enough or tangentially related to commerce and so does not justify an expansion of congressional powers to regulate the inactivity of an individual. This legislation significantly changes the federal and state balance of power which was unintended.
Many aspects of this insurance reform bill are very important and needed but they do not justify an expansion of power that can easily be foreseen as a tool that could be misused in the future. Our collective euphoric feeling for having passed health insurance reform should not blind us to the danger that an expansion of power like this could mean for our future.
The GOP is contending that they wish to comply with the constitution while lowering premiums and that they intend to draft the replacement bill to comply with the guidance of the Supreme Court, that is, after that body hears a few cases on the issue of “mandates,“ Click here to read what Politico had to say about the mandates. Law professor, Randy E. Barnett, asked the same question
“Can Congress really require that every person purchase health insurance from a private company or face a penalty? The answer lies in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states." Historically, insurance contracts were not considered commerce, which referred to trade and carriage of merchandise. That's why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states. But the Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of "economic" activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. The key is that those activities substantially affect interstate commerce, and that's how the court would probably view the regulation of health insurance.
"But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. Regulating the auto industry or paying "cash for clunkers" is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. Even during World War II, the federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds. If you choose to drive a car, then maybe you can be made to buy insurance against the possibility of inflicting harm on others. But making you buy insurance merely because you are alive is a claim of power from which many Americans instinctively shrink. Senate Republicans made this objection, and it was defeated on a party-line vote, but it will return.”
That analysis is part of a longer post titled “The individual mandate.” If the mandate is stricken by the court as over reaching the bill goes back through the Senate and the House of representatives. Without a mandate to purchase insurance, this will make the insurance companies vulnerable because H.R. 3590 prohibits denying coverage to children and later adults but without a mandate people will only buy insurance when they’re sick or ill. Insurance companies will not have enough individuals paying into the system but will find themselves confronting and challenging their legal obligation to accept all applicants with preexisting condition which is going to lead to even more cases filed with the courts. Without this mandate, the insurance industry would declare a deal breaker. If people are not forced to participate and fined for not doing so the pool of resources shrinks and the system can not afford to pay for the patients with preexisting conditions.
Most laws are crafted to withstand constitutional scrutiny but that does not mean that the Supreme Court agrees. What the drafters of the health care bill failed to consider was that an increase of such power would be based on criteria that can reasonably be foreseen as a possible hazard to other personal rights, creates an imbalance of power by expanding a centralized government, and obliterates any outer limit to the commerce clause
Including a n opt-out option, or Public Option or the ability of purchasing out of state policies may have saved this bill from being undercut by the Supreme Court becuase it over reaches congressional power.
Rafael Buelna
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Ink, The Bill and the Hate
The ink of the presidents pen has not been placed to paper but the rabid anger over the new health care bill is already out there where ever one looks. Take a look at this bit of anger titled “Waterloo” writen on March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm by David Frum. David Frum concluded by saying “….So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.” With some luck, like many political and legal strategist have predicted, this health care reform will withstand any repeal attempt and just become part of the political background and fade into history as a political, social and economic positive step forward that the United States decided to take.
In the past bills like Medicare were divisive but were signed into law and later adjusted to better serve both patients and health care providers. The anger that has been fueled by this new health care reform bill has to subside for the sake of the nation because what did not happen during the creation of Medicare was that states were not lining up to mount legal oppositions. Mr. Frum describes the kind of none cooperation between parties that stops progress on important issues of the day from being made. Mr. Frum is also pointing out a disappointment associated with what’s is better phrased as “we lost and they won.” There are not many people (GOP, Tea Party) who were against this bill throwing up their arms and saying “we lost, now lets all work together and move on.” The President is going to give a victory speech to a nation that is more divided politically now than ever before and also more polarized economically. No matter how much reconciliatory President Obama paints into his victory speech on health care reform, Washington viciousness, hate, and anger has officially been cranked up several degrees.
Obama will declare such talk about “increased anger,” a “divided country like never before” as the non sense of “sour losers.” The Problem is that calling anyone that suggests this chaos is waiting for us down the road, names, does not make it untrue. It is hardly untrue that this issue was hotly debated in kitchen tables, bars, garages and laboratories all over the country and divided both parties in half. Medicare was passed by both parties but it was a democratic bill and helped citizens regardless of party affiliation yet republican victories occurred in the years that followed. Republicans will have a hard time repealing this bill because it has too many republican elements, ideas, proposals attached to it and people have a problem giving back what has been give to them. The democrats have tied the hand of progressives because it will be an up hill fight to convince the middle class to increase their tax payments again in the near future to include the millions this new bill leaves behind.
Yes -- this bill has many great aspects to it --- now students can be on their parents health care plan until they are 26, no denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions is a violation of the law, and families making under eighty thousand dollars (80K) per year or less will be given money to help pay for their expensive premiums. Families making eighty thousand dollars or more will not get assistance and actually pay higher premiums. Time goes by and pressure mounts on the middle class and they’ll get tired of paying high monthly health care bills. Eighty thousand per year for a family of four can mean two parents working hard and yet not getting ahead. Aside from the fifteen million people this health care plan is leaving behind today or will not help each year millions more will be uninsured and their pleads for help might be ignored. Those citizens that make eighty thousand dollars annually just might stop donating to the Democrats each time they want to add more people to the new health care system This cycle is why failing to include everyone in today’s new health care reform bill was failure.
Rafael Buelna
In the past bills like Medicare were divisive but were signed into law and later adjusted to better serve both patients and health care providers. The anger that has been fueled by this new health care reform bill has to subside for the sake of the nation because what did not happen during the creation of Medicare was that states were not lining up to mount legal oppositions. Mr. Frum describes the kind of none cooperation between parties that stops progress on important issues of the day from being made. Mr. Frum is also pointing out a disappointment associated with what’s is better phrased as “we lost and they won.” There are not many people (GOP, Tea Party) who were against this bill throwing up their arms and saying “we lost, now lets all work together and move on.” The President is going to give a victory speech to a nation that is more divided politically now than ever before and also more polarized economically. No matter how much reconciliatory President Obama paints into his victory speech on health care reform, Washington viciousness, hate, and anger has officially been cranked up several degrees.
Obama will declare such talk about “increased anger,” a “divided country like never before” as the non sense of “sour losers.” The Problem is that calling anyone that suggests this chaos is waiting for us down the road, names, does not make it untrue. It is hardly untrue that this issue was hotly debated in kitchen tables, bars, garages and laboratories all over the country and divided both parties in half. Medicare was passed by both parties but it was a democratic bill and helped citizens regardless of party affiliation yet republican victories occurred in the years that followed. Republicans will have a hard time repealing this bill because it has too many republican elements, ideas, proposals attached to it and people have a problem giving back what has been give to them. The democrats have tied the hand of progressives because it will be an up hill fight to convince the middle class to increase their tax payments again in the near future to include the millions this new bill leaves behind.
Yes -- this bill has many great aspects to it --- now students can be on their parents health care plan until they are 26, no denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions is a violation of the law, and families making under eighty thousand dollars (80K) per year or less will be given money to help pay for their expensive premiums. Families making eighty thousand dollars or more will not get assistance and actually pay higher premiums. Time goes by and pressure mounts on the middle class and they’ll get tired of paying high monthly health care bills. Eighty thousand per year for a family of four can mean two parents working hard and yet not getting ahead. Aside from the fifteen million people this health care plan is leaving behind today or will not help each year millions more will be uninsured and their pleads for help might be ignored. Those citizens that make eighty thousand dollars annually just might stop donating to the Democrats each time they want to add more people to the new health care system This cycle is why failing to include everyone in today’s new health care reform bill was failure.
Rafael Buelna
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)