Would a 'single payer' health care plan be less vulnerable to the Supreme Court than the Affordable Health Care Act?
Quietman ~PWCM~JLA
2012/06/12 19:58:32
|
|
|||||
|
3 votes
|
|
38% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
25% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
38% | |||
If the Supreme Court does decide to strike down any or all of the Affordable Health Care Act, the implications will range from the political to the medical to the economic.
For me, such a decision will take its place among the more supremely ironic of unintended consequences: a law designed to avoid greater government intrusion into health care will have been invalidated as an unconstitutional overreach of government power, while a far more intrusive approach would have clearly passed muster.
How could this be possible? Welcome to the wonderful world of constitutional interpretation.
Let’s begin by imagining that Congress and the president decided to adopt a genuinely radical health care plan—the kind in place in most of the industrialized world. They decide on a “single-payer” system, where the government raises revenue with taxes, and pays the doctor, hospital and lab bills for just about everyone.
Put aside the question of whether this is a good idea, or an economically sustainable notion. The question is: would such a law be constitutional?
The answer, unquestionably, is “yes.” In fact, it would be the simplest law in the world to enact. All the Congress would need to do is to take the Medicare law and strike out the words “over 65.” Why is it constitutional? For the same reason Medicare and Social Security are: the taxing power. Its reach is immense. During World War II, the maximum income tax rate was 91 per cent (it was paid by few, thanks to loopholes, but still). The same Congress that could abolish the estate tax could set just about whatever limit it chose; it could impose a 100 percent tax on estates over, say, $5 million. If it decided that a national sales tax was an answer to huge budget deficits, it could impose one at whatever level it chose.
(The remedy, of course, lies with the voters, who would be more than likely to send a powerful message at the next election, which is why the lack of constitutional limits on the taxing power do not lead to confiscatory rates.)
For me, such a decision will take its place among the more supremely ironic of unintended consequences: a law designed to avoid greater government intrusion into health care will have been invalidated as an unconstitutional overreach of government power, while a far more intrusive approach would have clearly passed muster.
How could this be possible? Welcome to the wonderful world of constitutional interpretation.
Let’s begin by imagining that Congress and the president decided to adopt a genuinely radical health care plan—the kind in place in most of the industrialized world. They decide on a “single-payer” system, where the government raises revenue with taxes, and pays the doctor, hospital and lab bills for just about everyone.
Put aside the question of whether this is a good idea, or an economically sustainable notion. The question is: would such a law be constitutional?
The answer, unquestionably, is “yes.” In fact, it would be the simplest law in the world to enact. All the Congress would need to do is to take the Medicare law and strike out the words “over 65.” Why is it constitutional? For the same reason Medicare and Social Security are: the taxing power. Its reach is immense. During World War II, the maximum income tax rate was 91 per cent (it was paid by few, thanks to loopholes, but still). The same Congress that could abolish the estate tax could set just about whatever limit it chose; it could impose a 100 percent tax on estates over, say, $5 million. If it decided that a national sales tax was an answer to huge budget deficits, it could impose one at whatever level it chose.
(The remedy, of course, lies with the voters, who would be more than likely to send a powerful message at the next election, which is why the lack of constitutional limits on the taxing power do not lead to confiscatory rates.)
Read More: http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-irony--would-a--sing...
But... a Single Payer system would no force a lot more people into situations where they had to pay a fine (tax, according to Roberts). And since taxes cannot be ruled unconstitutional until after implementation, more people paying = more chances to bring it up again.
As it is now, relatively few people are actually going to be forced to do something they don't want, so there is much less chance a group of them will bring a new challenge (well, I'm sure somebody will)... and less chance that some of them can demonstrate any sort of actual harm that violates constitutionality.
So... I see the Single Payer system as MORE vulnerable, not less vulnerable.
Personally, I think it would be better, but I cannot fathom how it might get enough votes to pass Congress.
2) Rationing would suffer innumerable law suits . Rationing is just a fact of life in medical care demand outstrips supply in every arena . Lawsuits from single payer in that Politicians and the politically connected will not accept the government dole.
( Not willing to accept Obamacare for themselves or their families either )
Recall the Canadian Premier which came to America to escape the " Free " care at home.
Medical care is a commodity bought and sold like any other . The best congress can achieve is Tort reform , Increased trained medical personnel , remove obstacles to equipment and drug introductions into the markets . Then allow the markets to control the flow of events.