Obama's death panel to kill Sarah Palin's Down Syndrome baby

[SirNitram]

However, the bill itself contains several direct Constitutional violations, including real-time access to your bank account if you're on the plan!!

Quote the original text of the bill where these exist. Go on. I dare you.

Here's a hint: I've read through those talking-points, distributed by a lawyer's group who is bought and paid for, and these things are works of fiction, meant to sway credulous morons like you.

But go ahead. Bring out the publically posted bills of HCF and show me. Don't quote name and verse(You'll use the lies of your letterheaded bit of agitprop, and never look to see it's full of lies). Show me the quotes and the section numbers.

We're all waiting.

[Guardsman Bass]

Simon, the reason people are so pessimistic is that liberals have been trying for UHC in the USA since Truman. Seriously- it got killed on the grounds it was "socialized health care".

Actually, it goes all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt:

HARBINGER OF CHANGE. The U.S. has flirted with some kind of national health policy six times over the past 100 years, only to see the reform impulse wither each time. For instance, a key plank in Theodore Roosevelt's losing Presidential campaign of 1912 was national health insurance. President Harry Truman tried again after World War II, but he was thwarted by a potent combination of political forces, including the vehement opposition of the American Medical Assn., which was determined to defend doctors' incomes against the threat of "socialized" medicine.

The Clinton Administration's health-care initiative of 1993 collapsed a year later, after conservatives, physicians, and insurance companies mounted a well-orchestrated attack. "Major changes in health policy, like major changes in any area, are political acts, undertaken for political purposes," Victor Fuchs, the dean of health economists, wrote in his 1993 book, The Future of Health Policy.

That's right, Bush talked up health care reform in his second term. By the way, the article ignores Lyndon Johnson's and Richard Nixon's equally unsuccessful attempts.

It looks like we Americans have a 100-some-odd year history of NOT wanting anyone but ourselves and our families making our choices about our health and that of our families. That's why this latest round of so-called reform is drawing such heated opposition. We've been here before, and we're not changing our minds.

I find it amusing that you think the AMA spending massive sums of money in real dollars (as Krugman points out in his book, the amount the AMA spent to kill Truman's plan would amount to around $200 million in real dollars today) somehow equates to Americans "not wanting anyone but ourselves and our families making choices" about health care (as if being told you get the pleasure of choosing doctors from a network and arguing with an insurance company over charges is somehow keeping things between patients and their doctors).

Oh, and Roosevelt did extremely well, getting more votes than the Republican candidate. Had he actually gotten the Republican nod, it's certainly within the realm of possibility that he'd beat Wilson.

To the topic: I did a search of the Acrobat file of HR3200, and it does not specifically address congenital defects or Down's syndrome; further, the much-ballyhooed "end of life" provisions are sufficiently vague that you can attach any interpretation to them that you want. Probably by design. However, the bill itself contains several direct Constitutional violations, including real-time access to your bank account if you're on the plan!! I'm guessing the wiggle on this is that, hey, you "volunteered" for coverage, therefore you "volunteered" for this total invasion of privacy. If you want to read the whole 1000+ page monster, click here. I'm NOT going to pull a Dominus Atheos and post the whole thing!

Posting the relevant parts would be enough.

Point of fact: there is no provision in the Constitution, the foundation of America's social contract, that allows Congress to control 1/7 of our economy. They know this. We know this. That's why "universal" health care hasn't flown in the US all the times it's been attempted.

You mean aside from Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, which has been upheld in repeated Supreme Court decisions to apply to essentially any commercial transaction within the United States?

There is one proper, legal, Constitutional way to go about this, and that's by introducing and having passed by a 2/3 majority, an amendment to the Constitution. Oddly enough, Democrat Jesse Jackson Jr., yes that Jesse Jackson's son, has proposed the only Constitutional method of implementing national health care in the U.S. Introduced in March 2009. Funny that it's not in the papers.

I think it's more funny that you're bringing up lolbertarian points like the "constitutional" argument. Why don't you spending some of the time you've spent mining the bill for snippets of information to read up on some of the important Supreme Court decisions of the 1930s?

[Count Chocula]

Hey erik_t, you forgot Pew Research:

By a 44%-to-38% margin, more Americans generally oppose than favor the health care proposals now before Congress. Opposition rises to 56% among people who say they have heard a lot about legislation to overhaul the health care system. Concerns about the costs and increased government involvement in the health care system are volunteered most often by Americans critical of the health care proposals.

You also forgot the Time Magazine poll:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... 26,00.html

The respondents want reform but are worried about the costs.

Hey lookie, here's CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Americans appear split over President Barack Obama's health care reform proposals, according to a new national poll.

Fifty percent of those questioned in CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday morning say they support the president's plans, with 45 percent opposed.

The results indicate a generational divide.

Wait, there's more! From Rasmussen again:

The health care reform legislation working its way through Congress has lost support over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% of U.S. voters are at least somewhat in favor of the reform effort while 53% are at least somewhat opposed.

Today’s 44% level of support is down from 46% two weeks ago, and 50% in late June.

Opposition has grown from 45% in late June to 49% two weeks ago and 53% today.

Your Rasmussen poll shows even less support than my source from July 22. Good for you.

Hey, here's another one from USA Today, dated....today:

poll found:

•Significant differences on what the key goal of a health care overhaul should be. Two-thirds of blacks and six in 10 Hispanics say it should be expanding coverage to the uninsured, but six in 10 whites say controlling costs. Westerners are inclined to say expanding coverage is more important; Southerners say it's controlling costs.

•Challenges in convincing most Americans that it is urgent to act this year, as Obama argues. There's less urgency among those who have insurance and whose health is excellent or good — groups that make up the majority of those polled.

•Resistance among seniors. Fewer than half of seniors polled want an overhaul enacted this year.

The chart at the link is interesting in the breakdown of ages and views; those who would be most affected, the "senior citizens," are those most opposed.

Nice display of bias on your link to FiveThirtyEight, by the way:

What is your political affiliation? My state has non-partisan registration, so I am not registered as anything. I vote for Democratic candidates the majority of the time (though by no means always). This year, I have been a supporter of Barack Obama. The other contributor to this website, Sean Quinn, has also been a supporter of Barack Obama.

Are your results biased toward your preferred candidates? I hope not, but that is for you to decide. I have tried to disclose as much about my methodology as possible.

Were you too lazy to spend 10 minutes on Google to find more health care poll results than an analyst's site who is voted Democrat most of the time? And you want to VI me? Fuck off.


Nitram, I'll get to your point in a minute.

[erik_t]

Learn to read, you fucking dipshit inbred mouthbreather. You didn't say people don't want the reform currently proposed, you said they do "NOT [want] anyone but ourselves and our families making our choices about our health and that of our families."

This is directly contradicted by the variety of polls I have cited. Go take a flying leap.

[Samuel]

It looks like we Americans have a 100-some-odd year history of NOT wanting anyone but ourselves and our families making our choices about our health and that of our families. That's why this latest round of so-called reform is drawing such heated opposition. We've been here before, and we're not changing our minds.

From the people who brought Terry Shivo.

Point of fact: there is no provision in the Constitution, the foundation of America's social contract, that allows Congress to control 1/7 of our economy. They know this. We know this. That's why "universal" health care hasn't flown in the US all the times it's been attempted.

To bad the US government has already funded health measures and those were not declared unconstitutional.

Concerns about the costs and increased government involvement in the health care system are volunteered most often by Americans critical of the health care proposals.

Ah, so they are morons.

Two-thirds of blacks and six in 10 Hispanics say it should be expanding coverage to the uninsured, but six in 10 whites say controlling costs. Westerners are inclined to say expanding coverage is more important; Southerners say it's controlling costs.

•Challenges in convincing most Americans that it is urgent to act this year, as Obama argues. There's less urgency among those who have insurance and whose health is excellent or good — groups that make up the majority of those polled.

And the people who are worried about the costs are those who already have coverage. I see a pattern here.

•Resistance among seniors. Fewer than half of seniors polled want an overhaul enacted this year.

The chart at the link is interesting in the breakdown of ages and views; those who would be most affected, the "senior citizens," are those most opposed.

CC, you are acting like an idiot. THEY ARE ALREADY COVERED!

[SirNitram]

Yet, if you move away from the media-distorted claims about the plan to the question of government run healthcare, here's what you get.. Link

While 85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt,...

The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

CBS/NYT

Link

The poll — which was just released by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a D.C. policy think tank — finds that a majority (53%) strongly back the availability of a public plan, while another 30% “somewhat” support it. That’s a total of 83% in favor of a public plan — a staggeringly large majority.

Who was this poll run by? Not journalists and pollsters. Quote from same page:

This survey was made possible with support from AARP, American Express, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Buck Consultants, Chevron, Deere & Company, IBM, Mercer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Principal Financial Group, Schering-Plough Corp., Shell Oil Company, The Commonwealth Fund, and Towers Perrin.

Big Business runs poll, still can't kill the large majority wanting a public plan.

Reuters, how about them? Non-partisan newswire agency. Surely they will support Chocula's fantasies! ANd.. NO!

A Quinnipiac poll last month found 69 percent of U.S. voters back government-run insurance even though most people who already have coverage said they were at least somewhat satisfied with it.

Quinnipiac and Reuters. Hard pressed to get more professional outfits left in the US. And they to say you're Full Of Shit on your polls.

What a turd. Yea, we're looking to you as a VI. You keep proving we should.

[Count Chocula]

Quote the original text of the bill where these exist. Go on. I dare you.

Dare accepted:

5 ‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real
6 time) determination of an individual’s financial
7 responsibility at the point of service and, to the
8 extent possible, prior to service, including
9 whether the individual is eligible for a specific
10 service with a specific physician at a specific fa
11 cility, which may include utilization of a ma
12 chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi
13 fication card;

Is that too vague? Perhaps it needs more clarification:

8 TITLE III—SHARED
9 RESPONSIBILITY
10 Subtitle A—Individual
11 Responsibility
12 SEC. 301. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.
13 For an individual’s responsibility to obtain acceptable
14 coverage, see section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code
15 of 1986 (as added by section 401 of this Act).

And what, pray tell, is Section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by section 401)? It's on Page 167: naah, screw that, let's go back to page 59 (feel free to read 167 onward yourself):

21 ‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in
22 order to allow automated reconciliation with the
23 related health care payment and remittance ad
24 vice;

EFTs require that the other party have your selected bank account number and bank routing number. IIRC, this can be used for inquiries, payment, and debits. And the section above (p. 167 on) specifically relates to information from your tax return being available to another party besides the IRS. 'Nuff said?

[General Zod]

at the point of service

At the point of service? You mean. . .like a cash register, perhaps? Or maybe a run of the mill credit check? Or even an automatic payment option, which is available for virtually every medical care provider?

[Patrick Degan]

Point of fact: there is no provision in the Constitution, the foundation of America's social contract, that allows Congress to control 1/7 of our economy.

One hundred eighty five years of case law on the matter of the Commerce Clause says otherwise. To wit:

Today it is firmly established doctrine that the power to regulate commerce, whether with foreign nations or among the several States, comprises the power to restrain or prohibit it at all times for the welfare of the public, provided only the specific limitations imposed upon Congress' powers, as by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, are not transgressed. 627

The applicability of Congress' power to the agents and instruments of commerce is implied in Marshall's opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden, 628 where the waters of the State of New York in their quality as highways of interstate and foreign transportation were held to be governed by the overriding power of Congress. Likewise, the same opinion recognizes that in ''the progress of things,'' new and other instruments of commerce will make their appearance. When the Licensing Act of 1793 was passed, the only craft to which it could apply were sailing vessels, but it and the power by which it was enacted were, Marshall asserted, indifferent to the ''principle'' by which vessels were moved. Its provisions therefore reached steam vessels as well. A little over half a century later the principle embodied in this holding was given its classic expression in the opinion of Chief Justice Waite in the case of the Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 629 a case closely paralleling Gibbons v. Ogden in other respects also. ''The powers thus granted are not confined to the instrumentalities of commerce, or the postal service known or in use when the Constitution was adopted, but they keep pace with the progress of the country, and adapt themselves to the new developments of times and circumstances. They extend from the horse with its rider to the stage-coach, from the sailing-vessel to the steamboat, from the coach and the steamboat to the railroad, and from the railroad to the telegraph, as these new agencies are successively brought into use to meet the demands of increasing population and wealth. They were intended for the government of the business to which they relate, at all times and under all circumstances. As they were intrusted to the general government for the good of the nation, it is not only the right, but the duty, of Congress to see to it that intercourse among the States and the transmission of intelligence are not obstructed or unnecessarily encumbered by State legislation.'' 630

The Radio Act of 1927 631 whereby ''all forms of interstate and foreign radio transmissions within the United States, its Territories and possessions'' were brought under national control, affords another illustration. Because of the doctrine thus stated, the measure met no serious constitutional challenge either on the floors of Congress or in the Courts. 632

Furthermore, there is no provision in the Constitution, "the foundation of America's social contract" which prohibits Congress from "controlling 1/7 of the U.S. economy". There is certainly no such restriction in the "Powers Forbidden to Congress" clause.

You have no argument.

[Count Chocula]

^ Zod makes a valid point, and to be honest, I don't know...and it's not spelled out in the bill. The question in my mind is, how would your ability to pay be determined? When I go to Walgreen's to pick up a prescription, I use my debit card. When I have to go to the emergency room, I pay with my debit card. In each case, the bank determines my ability to pay, not the hospital or some other third party. The vagueness of the wording is what's giving me heartburn. Like many of us here, I suppose, I also have some payments set up on Bill Pay: I've agreed to have a utility or my mortgage deducted automatically, so they have my account information.

If this proposed legislation is just a convoluted way of saying "you gotta make your copay when you get treatment," there's nothing objectionable about that. If it's an equally convoluted way of saying "we know you can (or can't) pay," based on account access and their read of your IRS return well then I think there's a problem.

[Count Chocula]

Man oh man.

One hundred eighty five years of case law on the matter of the Commerce Clause says otherwise.

Don't take this as snark, because it's not. I haven't read many ICC Supreme Court rulings, so I'm hardly well versed in the subject. Let's say I get into a car accident and go to the hospital here in Florida. My Delaware-domiciled insurance company, which is licensed to operate in Florida using a Florida division, covers my treatment. I have gauze applied that was made in Indiana. The rubber tubing for the IVs was made in Massachusetts. Does that mean my treatment and insurance coverage are now subject to ICC rulings? Does that mean that any equipment made outside the state of Florida and purchased by the hospital subjects it to ICC rulings? Your examples applied to the means of transport and delivery of goods and information. Would that now include bank transfers from Delaware to my hospital's bank? The mind boggles.

[SirNitram]

Quote the original text of the bill where these exist. Go on. I dare you.

Dare accepted:

5 ‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real
6 time) determination of an individual’s financial
7 responsibility at the point of service and, to the
8 extent possible, prior to service, including
9 whether the individual is eligible for a specific
10 service with a specific physician at a specific fa
11 cility, which may include utilization of a ma
12 chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi
13 fication card;

Is that too vague?

Nope. It says you can immediately get approval and an idea of your bill, and not wait for weeks as the current system requires. It also enables instant approval/denial of services, not the 'File with us weeks ahead or we won't fucking pay' the private insurers use.

Moving on..

Perhaps it needs more clarification:

8 TITLE III—SHARED
9 RESPONSIBILITY
10 Subtitle A—Individual
11 Responsibility
12 SEC. 301. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.
13 For an individual’s responsibility to obtain acceptable
14 coverage, see section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code
15 of 1986 (as added by section 401 of this Act).

And what, pray tell, is Section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by section 401)? It's on Page 167: naah, screw that, let's go back to page 59 (feel free to read 167 onward yourself):

"Here's the page it's REALLY on. Instead, I'm going to refer to something else."

What you should REALLY have posted, because it's the ANSWER.

''SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

It's quite lengthy. But here's the meaty bits:

''(a) TAX IMPOSED.--In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of:

''(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

''(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

'(b) LIMITATIONS.--

''(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.--

''(A) IN GENERAL.--The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.

So you get a 2.5% tax if you don't have healthcare, with an upper cap of the averaged national premium. And then they list that, with regards to family coverage lacking under this, it specifies who don't count, like all those outside the country, non resident aliens, dependents, and those living in US Possessions.

There's also a religious-exemption.

21 ‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in
22 order to allow automated reconciliation with the
23 related health care payment and remittance ad
24 vice;

EFTs require that the other party have your selected bank account number and bank routing number. IIRC, this can be used for inquiries, payment, and debits. And the section above (p. 167 on) specifically relates to information from your tax return being available to another party besides the IRS. 'Nuff said?

'IIRC' does not cut it when I've already proved you've taken to lying through your teeth in this post. And I generally don't let it cut it for morons who have to increase the size to think they're credible.

So let's see what it REALLY says. And not this subsection of a section of a single portion.

‘‘SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.

Wait a second. Waaait a second. This doesn't sound like a government plot for my pocketbook! Indeed, it isn't, and if you'd have found that quote by reading HR3200, this ridiculous lie would never enter your head. You just cribbed it off of Drudge, who cribbed it off of paid opposition groups.

The section is dealing with new standards for ALL INSURERS. It's preceded by stuff about limiting recissions, pre-existing conditions, and so forth. What you are hyperventilating about is the fact that there will be a standard for paying for your insurance costs and co-pays via EFT.

Goddamn you're a worthless sack of shit.

[SirNitram]

The question in my mind is, how would your ability to pay be determined?

If you'd have read the bill you're copy-pasting propaganda from, you'd see the provision for ability to pay, and thus penalties/subsidies is there, and is described.

Gross income and comparison to the Federal Poverty level.

Thanks, though. This proves, once and for all, you never read the goddamn law. You just copy-pasted talking points.

[Elfdart]

As Salon points out, the insurance companies are the ones who have "death panels":

The future of healthcare in America, according to Sarah Palin, might look something like this: A sick 17-year-old girl needs a liver transplant. Doctors find an available organ, and they're ready to operate, but the bureaucracy -- or as Palin would put it, the "death panel" -- steps in and says it won't pay for the surgery. Despite protests from the girl's family and her doctors, the heartless hacks hold their ground for a critical 10 days. Eventually, under massive public pressure, they relent -- but the patient dies before the operation can proceed.

It certainly sounds scary enough to make you want to go show up at a town hall meeting and yell about how misguided President Obama's healthcare reform plans are. Except that's not the future of healthcare -- it's the present. Long before anyone started talking about government "death panels" or warning that Obama would have the government ration care, 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, a leukemia patient from Glendale, Calif., died in December 2007, after her parents battled their insurance company, Cigna, over the surgery. Cigna initially refused to pay for it because the company's analysis showed Sarkisyan was already too sick from her leukemia; the liver transplant wouldn't have saved her life.

That kind of utilitarian rationing, of course, is exactly what Palin and other opponents of the healthcare reform proposals pending before Congress say they want to protect the country from. "Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote, in the same message posted on Facebook where she raised the "death panel" specter. "Health care by definition involves life and death decisions."

But then facts don't matter to these "deathers" any more than it mattered to the "birthers", the Shit Boaters, or the Clinton death list crowd -probably because these fucktards are for the most part, one and the same.

[Patrick Degan]

Man oh man.

One hundred eighty five years of case law on the matter of the Commerce Clause says otherwise.

Don't take this as snark, because it's not. I haven't read many ICC Supreme Court rulings, so I'm hardly well versed in the subject. Let's say I get into a car accident and go to the hospital here in Florida. My Delaware-domiciled insurance company, which is licensed to operate in Florida using a Florida division, covers my treatment. I have gauze applied that was made in Indiana. The rubber tubing for the IVs was made in Massachusetts. Does that mean my treatment and insurance coverage are now subject to ICC rulings? Does that mean that any equipment made outside the state of Florida and purchased by the hospital subjects it to ICC rulings? Your examples applied to the means of transport and delivery of goods and information. Would that now include bank transfers from Delaware to my hospital's bank? The mind boggles.

Red. The Herring is Red. Red is the Herring.

You really are ill-equipped at this sort of thing, aren't you? Debating people who actually bother to be somewhat versed in the subjects under discussion and who actually read things, that is.

Hint for the future: you'd better bring a lot more to the table than snark about subjects you admittedly lack knowledge of. Also, the narrow definition of commerce which you attempt to affirm was one of the first things rejected by Chief Justice Marshall in 1824 in the Gibbons ruling. To continue with Marshall's argument:

Continuing in Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall observed that the phrase ''among the several States'' was ''not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a state.'' It must therefore have been selected to demark ''the exclusively internal commerce of a state.'' While, of course, the phrase ''may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one,'' it is obvious that ''[c]ommerce among the states, cannot stop at the exterior boundary line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior.'' The Chief Justice then succinctly stated the rule, which, though restricted in some periods, continues to govern the interpretation of the clause. ''The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the states generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government.'' 600

Recognition of an ''exclusively internal'' commerce of a State, or ''intrastate commerce'' in today's terms, was at times regarded as setting out an area of state concern that Congress was precluded from reaching. 601 While these cases seemingly visualized Congress' power arising only when there was an actual crossing of state boundaries, this view ignored the Marshall's equation of ''intrastate commerce,'' which ''affect other states'' or ''with which it is necessary to interfere'' in order to effectuate congressional power, with those actions that are ''purely'' interstate. This equation came back into its own, both with the Court's stress on the ''current of commerce'' bringing each element in the current within Congress' regulatory power, 602 with the emphasis on the interrelationships of industrial production to interstate commerce 603 but especially with the emphasis that even minor transactions have an effect on interstate commerce 604 and that the cumulative effect of many minor transactions with no separate effect on interstate commerce, when they are viewed as a class, may be sufficient to merit congressional regulation. 605 ''Commerce among the states must, of necessity, be commerce with[in] the states. . . . The power of congress, then, whatever it may be, must be exercised within the territorial jurisdiction of the several states.'' 606

To apply it to your example which veers off into Red Herring Lake —because your Delaware-domiciled insurance company is licensed to operate in the State of Florida, it's business operations are decidedly being "introduced into the interior" of the State of Florida, meaning that your Delaware insurance company's business is not stopping at "the exterior line" of a state, therefore is interstate commerce, therefore falls under the scope of the Commerce Clause. As per U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters, 322 U.S. 533 (1944):

A fire insurance company which conducts a substantial part of its business transactions across state lines is engaged in "commerce among the several States," and subject to regulation by Congress under the Commerce Clause. P. 322 U. S. 539.

And:

Ordinarily courts do not construe words used in the Constitution so as to give them a meaning more narrow than one which they had in the common parlance of the times in which the Constitution was written. To hold that the word "commerce," as used in the Commerce Clause, does not include a business such as insurance would do just that. Whatever other meanings "commerce" may have included in 1787, the dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other books of the period show that it included trade: business in which persons bought and sold, bargained and contracted. [Footnote 8] And this meaning has persisted to modern times. Surely, therefore, a heavy burden is on him who asserts that the plenary power which the Commerce Clause grants to Congress to regulate "Commerce among the several States" does not include the power to regulate trading in insurance to the same extent that it includes power to regulate other trades or businesses conducted across state lines. [Footnote 9]

The modern insurance business holds a commanding position in the trade and commerce of our Nation. Built upon the sale of contracts of indemnity, it has become one of the largest and most important branches of commerce. [Footnote 10] Its total assets exceed $37,000,000,000, or the approximate equivalent of the value of all farm lands and buildings in the United States. [Footnote 11] It annual premium receipts exceed $6,000,000,000, more than the average annual revenue receipts of the United States Government during the last decade. [Footnote 12] Included in the labor force of insurance are 524,000 experienced workers, almost as many as seek their livings in coal mining or automobile manufacturing. [Footnote 13] Perhaps no modern commercial enterprise directly affects so many persons in all walks of life as does the insurance business. Insurance touches the home, the family, and the occupation or the business of almost every person in the United States. [Footnote 14] This business is not separated into 48 distinct territorial compartments which function in isolation from each other. Interrelationship, interdependence, and integration of activities in all the states in which they operate are practical aspects of the insurance companies' methods of doing business. A large share of the insurance business is concentrated in a comparatively few companies located, for the most part, in the financial centers of the East. [Footnote 15] Premiums collected from policyholders in every part of the United States flow into these companies for investment. As policies become payable, checks and drafts flow back to the many states where the policyholders reside. The result is a continuous and indivisible stream of intercourse among the states composed of collections of premiums, payments of policy obligations, and the countless documents and communications which are essential to the negotiation and execution of policy contracts. Individual policyholders living in many different states who own policies in a single company have their separate interests blended in one assembled fund of assets upon which all are equally dependent for payment of their policies. The decisions which that company makes at its home office -- the risks it insures, the premiums it charges, the investments it makes, the losses it pays -- concern not just the people of the state where the home office happens to be located. They concern people living far beyond the boundaries of that state.

And:

Commerce is interstate, he said, when it "concerns more States than one." Id., 22 U. S. 194. No decision of this Court has ever questioned this as too comprehensive a description of the subject matter of the Commerce Clause. [Footnote 34] To accept a description less comprehensive, the Court has recognized, would deprive the Congress of that full power necessary to enable it to discharge its Constitutional duty to govern commerce among the states. [Footnote 35]

The power confined to Congress by the Commerce Clause is declared in The Federalist to be for the purpose of securing the "maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States." [Footnote 36] But its purpose is not confined to empowering Congress with the negative authority to legislate against state regulations of commerce deemed inimical to the national interest. The power granted Congress is a positive power . It is the power to legislate concerning transactions which, reaching across State boundaries, affect the people of more states than one; -- to govern affairs which the individual states, with their limited territorial jurisdictions, are not fully capable of governing. [Footnote 37] This federal power to determine the rules of intercourse across state lines was essential to weld a loose confederacy into a single, indivisible Nation; its continued existence is equally essential to the welfare of that Nation. [Footnote 38]

Our basic responsibility in interpreting the Commerce Clause is to make certain that the power to govern intercourse among the states remains where the Constitution placed it. That power, as held by this Court from the beginning, is vested in the Congress, available to be exercised for the national welfare as Congress shall deem necessary. No commercial enterprise of any kind which conducts its activities across state lines has been held to be wholly beyond the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. We cannot make an exception of the business of insurance.

Again, you have no argument.

[Patrick Degan]

BTW, for those who might not be able to access the link provided by Chocula or are unable to open a .cgi file for lack of a default programme on one's own desktop, here's a perfectly readable link to HR 3200 at thomas.loc.gov. Oh, and here's the full text of Section 1173A, with all it's context in place:

SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.

`(a) Standards for Financial and Administrative Transactions-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall adopt and regularly update standards consistent with the goals described in paragraph (2).

`(2) GOALS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS- The goals for standards under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall--

`(A) be unique with no conflicting or redundant standards;

`(B) be authoritative, permitting no additions or constraints for electronic transactions, including companion guides;

`(C) be comprehensive, efficient and robust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper transactions or clarification by further communications;

`(D) enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual's financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;

`(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims;

`(F) provide for timely acknowledgment, response, and status reporting applicable to any electronic transaction deemed appropriate by the Secretary;

`(G) describe all data elements (such as reason and remark codes) in unambiguous terms, not permit optional fields, require that data elements be either required or conditioned upon set values in other fields, and prohibit additional conditions; and

`(H) harmonize all common data elements across administrative and clinical transaction standards.

`(3) TIME FOR ADOPTION- Not later than 2 years after the date of implementation of the X12 Version 5010 transaction standards implemented under this part, the Secretary shall adopt standards under this section.

`(4) REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC STANDARDS- The standards under this section shall be developed, adopted and enforced so as to--

`(A) clarify, refine, complete, and expand, as needed, the standards required under section 1173;

`(B) require paper versions of standardized transactions to comply with the same standards as to data content such that a fully compliant, equivalent electronic transaction can be populated from the data from a paper version;

`(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;

`(D) require timely and transparent claim and denial management processes, including tracking, adjudication, and appeal processing;

`(E) require the use of a standard electronic transaction with which health care providers may quickly and efficiently enroll with a health plan to conduct the other electronic transactions provided for in this part; and

`(F) provide for other requirements relating to administrative simplification as identified by the Secretary, in consultation with stakeholders.

`(5) BUILDING ON EXISTING STANDARDS- In developing the standards under this section, the Secretary shall build upon existing and planned standards.

`(6) IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a plan for the implementation and enforcement, by not later than 5 years after such date of enactment, of the standards under this section. Such plan shall include--

`(A) a process and timeframe with milestones for developing the complete set of standards;

`(B) an expedited upgrade program for continually developing and approving additions and modifications to the standards as often as annually to improve their quality and extend their functionality to meet evolving requirements in health care;

`(C) programs to provide incentives for, and ease the burden of, implementation for certain health care providers, with special consideration given to such providers serving rural or underserved areas and ensure coordination with standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria being adopted under the HITECH Act;

`(D) programs to provide incentives for, and ease the burden of, health care providers who volunteer to participate in the process of setting standards for electronic transactions;

`(E) an estimate of total funds needed to ensure timely completion of the implementation plan; and

`(F) an enforcement process that includes timely investigation of complaints, random audits to ensure compliance, civil monetary and programmatic penalties for non-compliance consistent with existing laws and regulations, and a fair and reasonable appeals process building off of enforcement provisions under this part.

`(b) Limitations on Use of Data- Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the use of information collected under this section in a manner that would adversely affect any individual.

`(c) Protection of Data- The Secretary shall ensure (through the promulgation of regulations or otherwise) that all data collected pursuant to subsection (a) are--

`(1) used and disclosed in a manner that meets the HIPAA privacy and security law (as defined in section 3009(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act), including any privacy or security standard adopted under section 3004 of such Act; and

`(2) protected from all inappropriate internal use by any entity that collects, stores, or receives the data, including use of such data in determinations of eligibility (or continued eligibility) in health plans, and from other inappropriate uses, as defined by the Secretary.'.

(2) DEFINITIONS- Section 1171 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d) is amended--

(A) in paragraph (7), by striking `with reference to' and all that follows and inserting `with reference to a transaction or data element of health information in section 1173 means implementation specifications, certification criteria, operating rules, messaging formats, codes, and code sets adopted or established by the Secretary for the electronic exchange and use of information'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(9) OPERATING RULES- The term `operating rules' means business rules for using and processing transactions. Operating rules should address the following:

`(A) Requirements for data content using available and established national standards.

`(B) Infrastructure requirements that establish best practices for streamlining data flow to yield timely execution of transactions.

`(C) Policies defining the transaction related rights and responsibilities for entities that are transmitting or receiving data.'.

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 1179(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-8(a)) is amended, in the matter before paragraph (1)--

(A) by inserting `on behalf of an individual' after `1978)'; and

(B) by inserting `on behalf of an individual' after `for a financial institution.'

(b) Standards for Claims Attachments and Coordination of Benefits -

(1) STANDARD FOR HEALTH CLAIMS ATTACHMENTS- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall promulgate a final rule to establish a standard for health claims attachment transaction described in section 1173(a)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(a)(2)(B)) and coordination of benefits.

(2) REVISION IN PROCESSING PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS-

(A) IN GENERAL- Section 1179 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-8) is amended, in the matter before paragraph (1)--

(i) by striking `or is engaged' and inserting `and is engaged'; and

(ii) by inserting `(other than as a business associate for a covered entity)' after `for a financial institution'.

(B) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall apply to transactions occurring on or after such date (not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act) as the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall specify.

—confirming Nitram's posting on this particular section and it's provisos.

[Simon_Jester]

Wouldn't killing a Down's Syndrome person for eugenics purposes be pointless? Aren't they sterile? (Or is that "usually sterile"?)

Yes. On the other hand, I oppose killing (or sterilizing) anyone for eugenics purposes, because history doesn't make me optimistic about the odds of people using that kind of power with any semblance of responsibility.

[The Yosemite Bear]

you do realize this is fantasy, lies trying to scare you like a steven king novel?

[Dominus Atheos]

DailyKos opinion post on the media response to this statement

Idiot Nation

Seriously? I mean, come the flying monkey hell on. How is it that this hollow-headed dimwit doesn't get run out of town for statements like that? Obama's going to come murder her son?

The whole Republican party can absolutely make stuff up, no question about it, 100% lies, no factual basis whatsoever, outrageous, known false stuff about euthanasia and "death panels" and denying care to people that are no longer "productive", stuff that's right out of the most venomous propaganda playbooks around, weird-assed, depraved, paranoid stuff that would be perfectly at home in a Henry Ford tract about the secret methods of the evil Jews or the like -- and not a goddamned news outlet on the planet is making a story out of the fact that these supposed leaders of their party are gleefully lying through their teeth about all of it, or that the "teabaggers" carrying these selfsame lies into public meetings aren't just angry Americans with a different point of view, but people spreading known, 100%-goddamn-freaking-false-and-false-from-the-very-first-time-it-was-uttered bullshit, and intentionally doing it so loud that they hope nobody can possibly shout them down.

There's no "he-said, she-said" on a statement like "Obama's coming to murder my handicapped child." There's no damn panel of talking-head experts that need to be involved, there's no need to call on a lefty and a righty to have an honest to God televised freaking debate over where or not Obama is really going to go appoint a new government panel devoted to the task of murdering America's mentally handicapped kids. There's no Gigantic Public Calling to have the Wall Street Journal or some other Fail-in-a-fishwrap rag devote column space exploring how Americans may be "divided" on the probability of future government child-killing squads.

What. The. Hell? If outright, astonishing, venomous child-murder-related death propaganda by some of the most prominent figures of a nation's political-supposed-discourse is not big, come-on-and-get-your-goddamn-Pulitzer-already news, what the hell is? But no -- all we get from such luminaries as the big boys of CNN these days are public statements about how even their own damn pundits can lie their asses off about whatever made-up disproven bullshit conspiracy crap they want, because that's just the way free speech is supposed to work, you pissant little asshole commoners.

I sure to hell hope all these news outlets are being paid off or something, because I would hate to find out, ten years from now, that they really were ignoring the circuslike butchering of democracy out of star-spangled, crap-flinging, head-in-the-ass incompetence. They had better be on the take, and not really this goddamn unwilling to do their jobs just as a matter of dimwitted, bullshit-peddling laziness.

[Azazal]

AHH THE STUPID, IT BURNS!!

At a town hall meeting at AARP headquarters in Washington, D.C., President Obama was asked by a woman from North Carolina if it was true "that everyone that's Medicare age will be visited and told they have to decide how they wish to die."

At first, the president joked that not enough government workers existed to ask the elderly how they wanted to die. The idea, he said, was to encourage the use of living wills and that critics were misrepresenting the intent of the "end of life" counseling provided for in the House bill. He did not say, "No, they wouldn't be contacted."

This administration, pledging to cut medical costs and for which "cost-effectiveness" is a new mantra, knows that a quarter of Medicare spending is made in a patient's final year of life. Certainly the British were aware when they nationalized their medical system.

The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof are legendary. The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror movie script.

The U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) basically figures out who deserves treatment by using a cost-utility analysis based on the "quality adjusted life year."

One year in perfect health gets you one point. Deductions are taken for blindness, for being in a wheelchair and so on.

The more points you have, the more your life is considered worth saving, and the likelier you are to get care.

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

The British are praised for spending half as much per capita on medical care. How they do it is another matter. The NICE people say that Britain cannot afford to spend $20,000 to extend a life by six months. So if care will cost $1 more, you get to curl up in a corner and die.

In March, NICE ruled against the use of two drugs, Lapatinib and Sutent, that prolong the life of those with certain forms of breast and stomach cancer.

The British have succeeded in putting a price tag on human life, as we are about to.

Can't happen here, you say? "One troubling provision of the House bill," writes Betsy McCaughey in the New York Post, "compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, Pages 425-430)."

One of the Obama administration's top medical care advisers is Oxford- and Harvard-educated bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel. Yes, he's the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and has the ear of his brother and the president.

"Calls for changing physician training and culture are perennial and usually ignored," he wrote last June in the Journal of the American Medical Association. "However, the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible."

Emanuel sees a problem in the Hippocratic Oath doctors take to first do no harm, compelling them "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others," thereby avoiding the inevitable move toward "socially sustainable, cost-effective care."

During the June 24 ABC infomercial on health care broadcast from the White House, Obama confessed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care."

Not, apparently, if it's your grandmother.

[The Spartan]

Is there someone to point out to the author of that editorial that Hawking lives in the fucking UK? I didn't see one when I followed the link.

[Dartzap]

They also have no idea what NICE does either, so the entire thing is bollocks.

[Glocksman]

They also have no idea what NICE does either, so the entire thing is bollocks.

It's from Investor's Business Daily, so of course the whole thing is bollocks.
In my mind IBD is the low rent Wall Street Journal.

I say 'low rent' because while they both have batshit crazy editorial staff, the WSJ also has a rep for some really first rate reportage while IBD is a propaganda mouthpiece on the front page as well as on the editorial page.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, there should be some kind of repercussions for outright slander. I understand the importance of freedom of the press, but I don't see how that extends to the freedom to slander without consequence. People have successfully sued news organizations for slandering them before; why can't politicians do the same? It is offensive and outrageous that people are running around spouting this "death panel" bullshit with no repercussions whatsoever. Are governments considered fair game for slander under the law somehow?

[Bluewolf]

Given the current attitude to Obama by some Wong, if he did then many idiots would wail that he was destroyed freedom of speech as part of his socailist agenda. It would give even more ammunition for the far right loonies too.