So what you're saying, is that there was an act. That did stuff. And then LATER they passed another act that nullified the first or changed it in some ways?

NO WAY.

Per Slate.com - not conservative by any means

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...alth_care.html

..."Some of the law's defenders have argued that Congress did just that when it passed the Militia Act of 1792, which compelled all "able-bodied" white men of certain ages to have a battle-ready musket or rifle. But that law hails from an era in which the United States were still young and our politicians wore white wigs. How good of a defense, really, is the Militia Act for the insurance mandate?

It's pretty flimsy. The constitutionality of the insurance mandate relies on the so-called Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The Militia Act (actually two bills passed within a week of one another in May 1792), on the other hand, depends on the Militia Clause, which authorizes the government to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia." Because the two mandates have such different foundations, the constitutionality of one is essentially independent of the other.

Separate clauses aside, the Militia Act of 1792 would still be poor precedent for the insurance mandate, because Congress never enforced, or even meant to enforce, the law at the federal level. Lost in the health-care inflected discussion of the bill is its initial purpose: To standardize state militias and to authorize the president to call them into action. The government expected each state to achieve standardization through locally issued regulations, and to handle the gun-toting provision independently."...

See above.

:eek:

Wow dude. I think your sarcasm detector is broken. Or were you too busy planning your move to Canada to get away from these batshit crazy laws people be tryin' to pass lately?

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17r7...g/original.png

Uh, you linked to an article written in 2010. Today's ruling had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause.

Further, your entire argument here is based on a slippery slope, not actual logic.

I have a Facebook friend whose wife is from Finland. He posted that they might have to move there. FAIL there too...

You have crappy insurance because your employer is giving you crappy insurance. Employees in your company should make a lot of noise about that and ask for more options. Or organize and demand it. I have phenomenal insurance. Ideally, someday, we will take all those choices out of our employers hands and be able to purchase our own. Our employers can give us vouchers to offset costs as a means of attracting good talent. This is a step toward that. We have to take baby steps because this country isn't ready for anything else. A lot of people aren't even ready for this.

Here, here! I love going to a PA or clinical nurse practitioner. It's so much easier to get an appointment and they seem to spend more time with you too.

You brought up the argument and then told others that the same argument didn't apply. I'm confused. The big difference between your analogy and health insurance is that there is nobody in this country who does not ever use the health care system. Nobody. Not a soul. Everybody needs a doctor at some point in their life.

After reading stuff on MSN:


1. Everything has pros and cons but what are some people REALLY mad about?


2. Why are people attention whoring and pretending they will move to Canada? Canada has health care that is publicly funded. They have a tax system that emphasizes the redistribution of wealth. Gun control is strict, same-sex marriage is legal, and there is no capital punishment. These are things that most right-wingers, conservatives, and staunch conservatives (who comprise the majority of the people so outraged over the Supreme Court decision) would be opposed to. These are things that are rooted in a similar foundation as this Health Law.

ETA: I just read IUHoosiergirl88's post and that is what I am saying.

As of today, only children under 19 cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions. Adults will have that in 2014. Currently though those same children can be charged at a much much higher cost than healthy children. That will also change in 2014.

The individual mandate starts in 2014. Open enrollment will begin in about 16 months on 10/01/2013. Coverage will begin 01/01/2014.

The only thing carriers will be able to rate on is age, geographic location, and tobacco use.

The CMS summary of the law is around 600 pages and can be found online. It's worth a read.

Amen and amen! And as you note, universal healthcare does not have to mean single-payer.

Well, if one is willing to sign a binding agreement that as long as he don't have health insurance he will pay-up front for all health care services -- including regular check-ups and preventive services that can cut down on the likelihood of more expensive services -- and that he will never ever expect services that would result in a cost to the health care system that he personally won't cover, then I have no problem waiving the penalty/tax/whatever-anyone-wants-to-call-it. Otherwise, he's part of the problem that's straining the healthcare system, and in turn the economy, to the limits. And otherwise, he is being taxed for something he will use: healthcare services.

This is classic jurisprudence; the role of the courts in a case like this is not to pass on the wisdom of laws, much less the popularity of laws, but on the constitutionality of laws.


Meanwhile, I'm still shaking my head at the outrage of many on the Republican side, given that many of the aspects of Obamacare they're decrying as evil started out as Republican proposals.

You're right. I forget that those other two don't technically go into effect until 2014 because Michigan has a law that the insurer I work for can't deny for pre-existing and can't charge at a higher rate that is already in effect. My employer is very thankful that PPACA will level the playing field so we aren't the only one bound to those rules. It puts quite a strain on the company when they are the only insurer in the whole state is bound that way.

These rules apply to individual and family coverage, not employer coverage. Employer group coverage does not have medical review today. Groups do get charged at a higher RAF (rate adjustment factor) if their population has a higher rate of utilization though.

Which is why it will make sense for small businesses with a higher RAF to ditch the coverage and give their employees vouchers to use to purchase the plan of their choice through the health exchanges. Win-win!

The voucher requirement was pulled from the original law though before it ever even got to the Supreme Court. Also, groups have generally better coverage options than what's available on the individual and family market. The SHOP Exchanges will give small employers even more choices to offer their employees in 2014.

Um why do you say that? AFAIK the main reason there was a ruling on this to begin with was because of the Commerce Clause.

As a requirement, yes. But small businesses could still offer that to their employees. My hope is that eventually all employers will do that and we will get our own insurance with our own options just like we do with auto-insurance. What I really hate about our current system is that we are stuck with the options offered us by our employer who chooses plans based on cost, not based on employee preferences.

I know the exchange in Michigan is going to have a lot more available on the individual and family market than what is currently available. And the resources being poured into improving customer service and quality are incredible, since there will be more competition. This has really kicked insurance companies out of complacency.

My guess is because the ruling specifically said the individual mandate doesn't work under the Commerce Clause, but that it does work under the fed's ability to levy taxes.

Ghostwriter kept mentioning how this decision changes the ballgame in terms of federal power, and then used an article talking about how flimsy the Commerce Clause argument was. Well, apparently his linked article is right, and SCOTUS didn't change anything about how the Commerce Clause can be applied.

I agree w/ yours and DeltaBetaBaby's (?) earlier post but am pretty sure read that Ginsburg, in her separate opinion (presuming here that she spoke for at a least a segment of the other concurring "yes" voting block) said she had no problem with the individual mandate being consitutional under the Commerce Clause. It was Chief Justice Roberts' use of the taxing authority arugment that brought about his crucial 5th vote.

The commerce clause argument doesn't pass by a majority opinion, though. The majority agree that Congress has the right to levy a tax. The majority do NOT agree that Congress has the right to force you to buy health insurance under the Commerce clause. The more liberal leaning justices all agree that congress can do this, but that is no more valid than the opinion that the entire law is invalid held by the conservative justices.

I thought Scalia's justification of his position in this case vs. Gonzales v. Raich was pretty indefensible.

We can regulate marijuana with the commerce clause because there's no other way to regulate marijuana, but we can't with healthcare because there are other ways to regulate healthcare.

Kind of inventive, but totally made up.

Pay the doctor/hospitals directly. Self insure. Fee for service.

This new entitlement is a big black hole for us to throw our collective money into. Watch for all the new taxes we will all pay to support this.

Why does a person have to buy insurance if he/she doesn't need it or want it? Why must I be coerced into buying a product I may not want and if I don't buy it I will be taxed for not buying it?

The reason for the above is that the Federal Government tells me I have to or else. I see this as overreaching and as a loss of freedom.

Scalia?! Made up?!! :eek: :D

A person doesn't have to buy insurance. But if a person chooses not to buy it, they have to pay the penalty/tax because experience shows that the bolded rarely happens, doesn't work, and drives up the cost of health care for everyone else. A person's choice not to buy has an impact on me, on everyone else who is insured, on the government and on the economy.

And those who can't afford treatment are left to die?

As Steven Colbert said, "Justice Antonin Scalia revealed that the whole time, he's just been four raccoons in a black garbage bag"

(on a side note, if you haven't seen Steven Colbert ripping Richard Mourdock of IN and announcing his alternate decisions...you should) :D

Exactly. You should have been an attorney because you lay out arguments very well.

;)

None of which are viable in the slightest as a "global" policy (ie fitting all Americans).

It's very simple:

1 - We've decided that all people are entitled to basic health care - that is to say, we've decided against throwing people out on the streets. They get served, because hey, humanity.

2 - That means (whether you 'want' it or not) every person is already covered. Formalizing the payment portion should actually APPEAL to Conservatives (see? Nobody gets a free ride!) ...

You buy a shitload of products you probably don't want through the government - that's actually one of the purposes of the government. Why does health care cause a flare-up about individual freedoms, when (say) oil subsidies get nothing related (when they're 99% the same thing)?

You also have to drive on the correct side of the road, or else.

"You will receive treatment, and so pay your part, or else!" is so straight forward and impossible to argue against that it boggles me to see the hand-wringing.

Technically, you're not being forced to buy health insurance; you have the option of paying a tax instead.

YOU are forced to pay taxes to fund the military
YOU are forced to pay taxes to fund corn-growing subsidies.
YOU are forced to pay taxes that fund the construction and maintenance of transit projects you will never use or be near.
YOU are forced to pay taxes for a lot of projects that are much less important to you and to this nation than health coverage is.

Basically, we (the public, the legislature, and SCOTUS) have decided that having everyone pay for some kind of basic healthcare is a benefit to the whole nation. Having everyone pay into the system means that the average premium costs will be lower, thus making healthcare more affordable and attainable for more people.

This decision is not really any kind of federal government overreach. It's pretty much right in line with what the Fed does every day.

Very well said.

Can you send this e-mail to the Obama administration? As professional political strategists they have done a monumentally poor job of framing (and thus successfully advancing) this issue since they took it up -- 2009.

Even now, the Supreme Court hadn't even left town and Repbulicans are framing it as "a tax, a tax, a tax." As political strategy, you could say they're winning, but then you realize that most people have health insurance and aren't subject to this, and it's really only firing up the Rep base to raise money.

I think/hope the Democrats are saving their money for September/October/November. In terms of fundraising, Obama is at a huge disadvantage with the PACs.