SCOTUS' Decision on ObamaCare

[applecorped]

6-3

 

[AlBell]

I liked this discussion.

I liked this blog comment:

even Clinton-appointed appellete Judge Hull had about the mandate:

"Hull telegraphed her thinking with repeated questions during June oral arguments in Atlanta regarding the case. Noting that “the panel spent a significant amount of time discussing whether the mandate is ‘severable’ from the rest of the law,” Politico pointed out that: “Hull in particular asked the federal government three times where the line should be.”

Ultimately, Hull and Dubina came to the conclusion that the individual mandate could, and should, be removed from an otherwise constitutional plan.

Why? Because, as the judges wrote in their majority decision: “This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives.”

Maybe this line of thinking is novel among ivy league law professors, but apparently not in the federal judiciary.

BTW, I've never seen a slower loading website.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I wish I didn't have to take part in the US health care industry, too.

 

[RandFan]

I liked this blog comment:

...as the judges wrote in their majority decision: “This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives.”

Now, if we could just figure out how we could stop the govt from forcing us to pay with every paycheck for trillion dollar fighter jets and other military nonsense and govt waste that many of us, perhaps most, don't want to buy.

It's this silly bit of nonsense that drives me crazy. Why not be honest? Why not just say, govt can force people to pay for it but not in this manner? The money must be taken from people and put in the general fund first. Then the govt could get rid of all insurances companies and do the job themselves.

 

[SezMe]

I liked this blog comment:

Why? Because, as the judges wrote in their majority decision: “This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives.”

But I thought the article directly rebutted this point.

Currently some (all?) states require a driver to buy auto insurance. If that is constitutional, then why is the health mandate also not constitutional? AlBell, do you have a line of reasoning on this?

 

[AlBell]

Now, if we could just figure out how we could stop the govt from forcing us to pay with every paycheck for trillion dollar fighter jets and other military nonsense and govt waste that many of us, perhaps most, don't want to buy.

And you can keep ignoring the fact that military expenditures and taxation is constitutional. The trillion (actually 1.7 trillion) should be somewhat offset that when the F22 is in service, existing state-of-the-art aircraft can be be sold.

It's this silly bit of nonsense that drives me crazy. Why not be honest? Why not just say, govt can force people to pay for it but not in this manner? The money must be taken from people and put in the general fund first. Then the govt could get rid of all insurances companies and do the job themselves.

While most people agree (with at least some of the fed juduiciary) that ObamaCare is not.

As I understand it, Insurance Cos. are major campaign contributors, so getting rid of them isn't easy; I haven't been able find data detailing their contributions. Plus x million unemployed.

 

[AlBell]

But I thought the article directly rebutted this point.

I guess we take what we like ... as usual.

Currently some (all?) states require a driver to buy auto insurance. If that is constitutional, then why is the health mandate also not constitutional? AlBell, do you have a line of reasoning on this?

A. Auto ins. is not a Fed Govt issue. But you knew that.

It may become one when we're mandated to buy a Volt. Hmm, maybe just one per family?

 

[BravesFan]

But I thought the article directly rebutted this point.

Currently some (all?) states require a driver to buy auto insurance. If that is constitutional, then why is the health mandate also not constitutional? AlBell, do you have a line of reasoning on this?

I am of the opinion that the Auto Insurance mandate is unconstitutional too....

Govt , should be limited only to the duties prescribed in the constitution. A big govt is a bad govt, a wasteful govt. If people want health care, let's eliminate most of the crap the Fed Govt pays for now and cut our fed tax maximum to like 10% then let the state and local govts take on more duties and we can pay more taxes to them. They are in the best position to handle these sorts of social issues anyway.

 

[RandFan]

And you can keep ignoring the fact that military expenditures and taxation is constitutional. The trillion (actually 1.7 trillion) should be somewhat offset that when the F22 is in service, existing state-of-the-art aircraft can be be sold.

I've not ignored it. I've conceded the point over and over and over and over. So, please to accept that.

Whether costs can be recouped is entirely irrelevant. I care that I pay for something I don''t want. My point is that while there may be very good reason to find this particular means unconstitutional it is grossly intellectually dishonest to pretend that govt can't force you to buy things. It does. Daily. And I've gotten a number of detractors to agree to that fact. What is needed is to force people to pay for things in a constitutional manner. By all means stand on the constitutional principle but don't pretend the govt can't force you to pay for things you do not want.

While most people agree (with at least some of the fed juduiciary) that ObamaCare is not.

As I understand it, Insurance Cos. are major campaign contributors, so getting rid of them isn't easy; I haven't been able find data detailing their contributions. Plus x million unemployed.

All well and good but none of this goes to my point. Further, the current system is unsustainable. Health care costs are rising faster than any other nations. We are the lone hold out for UHC. We are going to get it sooner or later that's not, IMO, a reasonably controversial point. Work out the details for the best plan and put it into practice.

That's all. I don't claim it's easy I claim we will need to do it and the sooner the better.

 

[Unabogie]

The government forces me to have children and assesses a fine if I don't. Oh, wait. No. It gives me a tax credit if I do and none if I don't.

Why am I being forced into the diaper market against my will?

 

[SezMe]

A. Auto ins. is not a Fed Govt issue. But you knew that.

I do know that. I also know it is entirely irrelevant. The states cannot enact unconstitutional legislation any more than the Feds. Now, with that distraction out of the way, please address my point.

 

[SezMe]

I am of the opinion that the Auto Insurance mandate is unconstitutional too....

Before that mandate, the states were spending a lot of money on medical services for people who didn't have insurance but who got in an accident. Seems to me since they were footing the bill they had a right to make some rules.

Govt , should be limited only to the duties prescribed in the constitution.

You missed the point of the article I linked to then. The commerce clause of the constitution empowers the mandate. Unless, of course, you have an argument that rebuts that author's line of reasoning.

 

[AlBell]

Or don't accept that line of reasoning for one reason or another...like the personal interpretation shared by many (subject to change depending on how SCOTUS finds) that ICC doesn't allow ACA and/or the mandate.

ps. I'm all for health care coverage for everyone; extending medicare-medicaid to cover all, and allowing the purchase if wanted from Ins. Cos. additional catestrophic coverage would actually make some sense.

Single payer, to me, is a joke.

 

[BravesFan]

I'm for the reversal of govt responsibility, now it seems that the county/local govt does only the minimum that the state won't do and the states do only the minimum required and dump the rest of it on the Fed. I would prefer to pay more city/local taxes, more state taxes and wayyyy less Federal taxes so more is done locally. Not only are the local and state govts in a better position to fulfill their area's needs, they have the added bonus of actually knowing their citizenry.

 

[RandFan]

I'm for the reversal of govt responsibility, now it seems that the county/local govt does only the minimum that the state won't do and the states do only the minimum required and dump the rest of it on the Fed. I would prefer to pay more city/local taxes, more state taxes and wayyyy less Federal taxes so more is done locally. Not only are the local and state govts in a better position to fulfill their area's needs, they have the added bonus of actually knowing their citizenry.

Having been a strong conservative up until the age of about 47, I'm 50 now, I certainly have some affinity for this sentiment. It has some value to it. But I have to say that pragmatically I'm not impressed with it. The states that eschew the federal govt typically take money from the feds and the states that are for federal responsibility typically give to it. I would be more impressed if these states could get their financial houses in order and take better care of their citizens. When they have shown to do that without the need to take from the fed I'll be more receptive.

In the end I personally care more about practical realities over theory. That is what moved me away from being a conservative.

 

[BravesFan]

No, in the south people would really rather be left alone, HOWEVER they aren't stupid(regardless what many on the left think) and will job the system like crazy. There are people down here that can game the system like you wouldn't believe. Now the rest of us (and the majority of the population lies in the 6 coastal counties and the 4 counties around Jackson) are the ones who make the money for the state. We don't really want or need any much federal assistance if any. Yet, the other counties in the rural areas, the one's that are all dry (yet the border liquor stores are booming) and launch all the Jesus mess, are the ones suckling the teat.

Not to mention, that to severe the flow of Federal Funds would force people to get their acts together.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

But I thought the article directly rebutted this point.

Currently some (all?) states require a driver to buy auto insurance. If that is constitutional, then why is the health mandate also not constitutional? AlBell, do you have a line of reasoning on this?

You do not HAVE to buy auto insurance. Even if you have a license to drive you don't HAVE to carry insurance if you don't own or regularly operate the car that you are driving. If you own a car AND it is operated on a public road then you HAVE to have insurance (or in some states be self-insured by having a certain amount in an escrow account specifically for that purpose).

Operating a car on public roads is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the state that can either be opted out of by the person not owning a car driven on a public road or denied by the state by not having the proper level of insurance (and for a wide variety of other reasons such as a history of bad driving habits, seizures or drunk driving).

Auto insurance and health insurance is a really bad comparison to use as a reason for this law.

 

[BravesFan]

I one time figured that it was cheaper for me to not have insurance and run the risk of being caught once a year and paying a ticket, than it was to pay my premiums....

 

[RandFan]

I one time figured that it was cheaper for me to not have insurance and run the risk of being caught once a year and paying a ticket, than it was to pay my premiums....

In California they take your car and sell it and you still have to pay off any financing.

 

[BravesFan]

That's why I don't live in California!