RE: Constitutional question

[Guest guest]

In worker's comp, you are required to participate in their plan only if you file

a claim from an on the job injury. Your employer is required to purchase that

plan to cover all employees. If you don't want that insurance, you have the

right to quit your job. You are required to have automobile insurance only if

you own and drive a vehicle. If you don't want it, then you can ride a bike.

The unconstitutional aspect of the obama care is that all individuals would be

mandated to have insurance coverage. It would have nothing to do with your

work, your car or even your risk factors. Your personal belief in western

medicine would not matter. Your religion would not matter. You just have to be

covered. Most plans would not cover much of anything other than emergencies

(which is not bad). Anything else would be too expensive for any individual to

pay for. And if you fall within a certain income level (less than 300% of the

poverty line in Oregon) then the taxpayers will pay for your insurance coverage,

whether you want it or not. If you think health care is expensive now, just

wait until its free.

dan miller dc

On Jan 21, 2011, at 3:18 PM, G wrote:

> I have been watching the news about the many states that have joined in to

challenge the Constitutionality of the new HealthCare plan proposed by the Obama

administration. One of the Governors mentioned it was unconstitutional, in her

stated, to mandate that anyone join, or be placed in a healthcare policy, or

association, without their consent.

>

> This question would be to the attorneys on this list. Does Oregon have such a

stipulation in our constitution? And if so, wouldn't Managed Care Organizations,

such as is required in the worker's compensation law, then be unconstitutional?

After all, they do require a person to be placed in a healthcare program, at the

insurers request, even if the patient would rather not.

>

> If this is then unconstitutional, wouldn't a class action suit be a way of

getting rid of the MCO fiasco in Oregon?

>

> Just something that came to mind when watching the news this morning.

>

> Ron Grice, DC

> Albany, OR

>

>

[Guest guest]

Just to be clear, this isn't a dem vs. republican issue. Although a Republican hated Democratic president is in office, this is an extremely pro-(big)business plan, the business of insurance. Insurance companies (who are the problem) win big. Score one for big business. They were allowed at the table and ate all the food. Why not have 24/7 catastrophic insurance and get rid of PIP, WC? Wouldn't this take the burden off of small business and spread the risk? Anything more than catastrophic would be buy-your-own or HSA (with true control by the worker).Rambling thoughts on a Friday night. Seitz, DC Tuality Physicians 730-D SE Oak St Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503)640-3724> CC: > rongrice@...> From: danm@...> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:30:09 -0800> Subject: Re: Constitutional question> > In worker's comp, you are required to participate in their plan only if you file a claim from an on the job injury. Your employer is required to purchase that plan to cover all employees. If you don't want that insurance, you have the right to quit your job. You are required to have automobile insurance only if you own and drive a vehicle. If you don't want it, then you can ride a bike. The unconstitutional aspect of the obama care is that all individuals would be mandated to have insurance coverage. It would have nothing to do with your work, your car or even your risk factors. Your personal belief in western medicine would not matter. Your religion would not matter. You just have to be covered. Most plans would not cover much of anything other than emergencies (which is not bad). Anything else would be too expensive for any individual to pay for. And if you fall within a certain income level (less than 300% of the poverty line in Oregon) then the taxpayers will pay for your insurance coverage, whether you want it or not. If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until its free.> > dan miller dc> > On Jan 21, 2011, at 3:18 PM, G wrote:> > > I have been watching the news about the many states that have joined in to challenge the Constitutionality of the new HealthCare plan proposed by the Obama administration. One of the Governors mentioned it was unconstitutional, in her stated, to mandate that anyone join, or be placed in a healthcare policy, or association, without their consent. > > > > This question would be to the attorneys on this list. Does Oregon have such a stipulation in our constitution? And if so, wouldn't Managed Care Organizations, such as is required in the worker's compensation law, then be unconstitutional? After all, they do require a person to be placed in a healthcare program, at the insurers request, even if the patient would rather not.> > > > If this is then unconstitutional, wouldn't a class action suit be a way of getting rid of the MCO fiasco in Oregon?> > > > Just something that came to mind when watching the news this morning.> > > > Ron Grice, DC> > Albany, OR> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------> > All posts must adhere to OregonDCs rules located on homepage at: /> Tell a colleague about OregonDCs! (must be licensed Oregon DC)

[Guest guest]

The challenge to the law is probably based on the federal Constitution, because a state law challenge (constitutional or otherwise) to a federal law would fail under the Supremacy Clause, which says federal law is the supreme law of the land. I believe the reason for the mandatory coverage was to get everyone inside the system. My understanding of the basic exchange is this: the insurers have to cover every condition, including pre-existing conditions, and in exchange they get all the patients whether they’re healthy or not. I believe the challenge should be unsuccessful because it’s reasonably related to the commerce clause powers of the legislature. But it is a political football, and the US Supreme Court is a political entity, especially when it comes to commerce clause issues. As a state, Oregon has the police power, which is the general power of a government to govern regardless of the subject matter. The federal government is a government of limited enumerated powers (interstate commerce, immigration, international diplomacy, etc), and any power it does not have is reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. T. Hill, PC520 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250Portland, OR 97204(503) 227-4330chill@...http://www.portlandinjurylaw.com From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of BRIAN SEITZSent: Friday, January 21, 2011 6:10 PMoregon DCsSubject: RE: Constitutional question Just to be clear, this isn't a dem vs. republican issue. Although a Republican hated Democratic president is in office, this is an extremely pro-(big)business plan, the business of insurance. Insurance companies (who are the problem) win big. Score one for big business. They were allowed at the table and ate all the food. Why not have 24/7 catastrophic insurance and get rid of PIP, WC? Wouldn't this take the burden off of small business and spread the risk? Anything more than catastrophic would be buy-your-own or HSA (with true control by the worker).Rambling thoughts on a Friday night. Seitz, DC Tuality Physicians 730-D SE Oak St Hillsboro, OR 97123 (503)640-3724> CC: > rongrice@...> From: danm@...> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:30:09 -0800> Subject: Re: Constitutional question> > In worker's comp, you are required to participate in their plan only if you file a claim from an on the job injury. Your employer is required to purchase that plan to cover all employees. If you don't want that insurance, you have the right to quit your job. You are required to have automobile insurance only if you own and drive a vehicle. If you don't want it, then you can ride a bike. The unconstitutional aspect of the obama care is that all individuals would be mandated to have insurance coverage. It would have nothing to do with your work, your car or even your risk factors. Your personal belief in western medicine would not matter. Your religion would not matter. You just have to be covered. Most plans would not cover much of anything other than emergencies (which is not bad). Anything else would be too expensive for any individual to pay for. And if you fall within a certain income level (less than 300% of the poverty line in Oregon) then the taxpayers will pay for your insurance coverage, whether you want it or not. If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until its free.> > dan miller dc> > On Jan 21, 2011, at 3:18 PM, G wrote:> > > I have been watching the news about the many states that have joined in to challenge the Constitutionality of the new HealthCare plan proposed by the Obama administration. One of the Governors mentioned it was unconstitutional, in her stated, to mandate that anyone join, or be placed in a healthcare policy, or association, without their consent. > > > > This question would be to the attorneys on this list. Does Oregon have such a stipulation in our constitution? And if so, wouldn't Managed Care Organizations, such as is required in the worker's compensation law, then be unconstitutional? After all, they do require a person to be placed in a healthcare program, at the insurers request, even if the patient would rather not.> > > > If this is then unconstitutional, wouldn't a class action suit be a way of getting rid of the MCO fiasco in Oregon?> > > > Just something that came to mind when watching the news this morning.> > > > Ron Grice, DC> > Albany, OR> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------> > All posts must adhere to OregonDCs rules located on homepage at: /> Tell a colleague about OregonDCs! (must be licensed Oregon DC)