The Aftermath

It took about twelve hours for those who are vehemently opposed to health care legislation to start their push to kill it. Before it has even been signed no less.

The vote last night has caused me to consult some sources, and I've found some important spots for where to read all the pertinent legislation, and where things stand.

NYT has a comprehensive page that is tracking the legislation.
They also have a map of the official Roll Call record.
And a page that shows what has been changed in the new bill.

Go here for the text of the original Senate Bill, H.R. 3590.
Go here for H.R. 4870, the Reconciliation Bill.

Whew that's a lot of information.

Once the bill is signed, there are twelve states that are ready to pounce on this thing, and take it to court. The Florida and South Carolina Attorney's Generals offices have filed a suit in U.S. District Court to challenge not only the constitutionality of the legislation, but also to force it to be thrown out of Congress, and thus repealed. Which erases all the work the President did the past few weeks.

Even Michigan is pissed off, because our Attorneys General Mike Cox has joined a similar suit, that would exempt the state of Michigan from this new federal legislation, effectively denying all its citizens the chance to buy healthcare when they need it. Thankfully, he needs 340,000 signatories on a petition to put it on the ballot in November, according to Michigan Radio this afternoon.

The other suit is in reference to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. South Carolina's Attorneys General was on MSNBC explaining his reasons. These reasons included, "It's the right thing to do," and, something to the effect of "I don't want government takeover of healthcare."

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I think the grounds for the suit is that since national health care was never put into the Constitution, it is the right of each state in the union to devise their own. And, since there is no prohibition of States doing so, then it is doubly their right to do it themselves. The plaintiffs argue that this legislation infringes on States' rights, and cannot be implemented.

It seems to me that the point of contention within the actual legislation is the "individual mandate" and its tax penalty, and the supposed requirement of states to spend more on healthcare services.

The mandate doesn't take effect until after 2014, but basically the penalty is a flat rate of 1% of personal income, or, about $95 a year for most people...however it does jump to about $395 per person one year later, and as much as $2,085 per family after 2016. I'm guessing they came up with this mandate to help defray the cost of some of the other policies like Medicare expansion and creating the insurance exchanges. How is this any more outrageous than any existing tax brackets that we Americans currently adhere to?

Second, the requirement that states MUST spend more on healthcare services. It seems the thinking here among the plaintiffs is that most states couldn't possibly afford to increase Medicaid program spendings, with tight budgets and all. Perhaps that is why the government is essentially paying for states to pay for it? The bill simply requires all states, by 2013, to pay primary care doctors the equivalent of what Medicaid already pays them (possibly to eliminate the more expensive forms of Medicare that is an unnecessary cost?)

At this point and time, I don't see how that in particular is an overreach of the federal government's power. I think these states are forgetting that part of the bill institutes policies for allowing STATES to create their own insurance exchanges, so that people without employer-subsidized healthcare can get it. And if that doesn't work, the bill creates TWO separate insurance offerings, overseen by the exact same office that does the Federal employee health care exchange, The Office of Personnel Management. One is even required to be a nonprofit agency, essentially creating the exact same thing federal employees get, but separate, with individually calculated premiums. It's just like Obama has said: if the health insurance that he and members of Congress get is good enough for them, it should be good enough for the rest of America. It's the "public option" but in a much more competition-oriented form, and if the States bitch about creating statewide insurance exchange or joining a regional one, then don't pay for it! Your people have the option of going to this insurance market, you fools!