Posted on 03/18/2015 7:33:47 AM PDT by asinclair
With the Supreme Court potentially dealing a blow to Obamacare, why isn't the Congress considering a Plan B to make health care more affordable, and health insurance less expensive?
>>With the Supreme Court potentially dealing a blow to Obamacare, why isn’t the Congress considering a Plan B to make health care more affordable, and health insurance less expensive?<<
Why bother? Johnny Roberts is going to uphold it on some pretense.
Most congressman are trial lawyers.
The problem is even deeper than trial lawyers being a deep-pocketed special interest group: most legislators are by training and profession lawyers. They vote their guild interests as lawyers ahead of the public interest whenever the two are in conflict.
As mentioned in related threads, note that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes. This is evidenced by the excerpts below from historic Supreme Court case opinions. So what Obamacare has actually done is to expose serious corruption in all three branches of the federal government.
Regarding current problems with the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fourth entry in the list, the excerpt from Paul v. Virginia. In that case the Court had essentially clarified that the feds have no Commerce Clause power to regulate insurance regardless if an insurance policy is negotiated across state borders.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
Also note that regardless that federal Democrats, RINOs, corrupt justices and indoctrinated attorneys will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds can’t do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause aside, the Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate healthcare in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Congress and the Obama Administration wrongly ignored that Congress first needed to successfully petition the states to ratify a healthcare amendment to the Constitution before establishing Obamacare.
The trial lawyers’ PACs and lobbyists are among the biggest democrat supporters, year in and year out.
Tort reform kills their golden goose.
The trial lawyers are a big constitutency.
Brother in law is a lawyer here in Florida.
He says the Florida bar has liberal leadership that takes their dues and give big to the dem party.
Long as that happens there will be NO tort reform.
Larry is a staunch Christian conservative and this irks him to no end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.