Originally Posted by Ghostwriter (Post 2155681)

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."...

Originally Posted by IUHoosiergirl88 (Post 2155598)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/peopl...e-of-obamacare

I'm posting this out of sheer amusement...people ACTUALLY threatening to move to Canada (land of what they're running from, might I add) because of this ruling. Ignorance is bliss, right?

Originally Posted by Beryana (Post 2155611)

But I had insurance - which isn't what this whole 'healthcare' debate is about?! How many people don't have insurance in this country?! Having insurance or not doesn't mean much if you still can't afford to go to the doctor when it is necessary (or can't afford the fees charged for tests which you pretty much HAVE to have because of various conditions/illnesses).

And tort reform (and insurance industry reform) have a LOT to do with this whole mess called a 'healthcare system'. . . .

Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 2155646)

In regards to the bold maybe we should get away from seeing the doctor for minor illnesses and rely more on nurses and PA's for our treatments of minor illnesses and check-ups. IIRC that's what they do in Canada. They also make a smaller salary compared to American health professionals.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter (Post 2155655)

So now I/you can be taxed for something we do not do or do not consume. I.E. - buy health insurance

What if the Congress and Senate decides everyone should own a gun? They can now tax you/me/he/she for not owning said gun. There are now no limits to the power of the Federal Government. They must simply tax ones actions or inactions in order to exert control. Scary stuff. The Genie is out of the bottle.

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 2155573)

Some parts are in effect. Parents can insure their children up to age 26, insurance has to cover pre-existing conditions, and cannot charge more for premiums due to prior health history. Those are all part of that law.

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi (Post 2155589)

What I would ideally like to see is a universal healthcare system that ensures a basic, free, level of coverage for all Americans, administered through a combination of private and public entities. For those who want a faster or fancier policy, they can purchase it, or have their employer provide it as part of a compensation package.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter (Post 2155655)

So now I/you can be taxed for something we do not do or do not consume. I.E. - buy health insurance.

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 2155659)

Yes! I loved this part of Roberts' majority opinion: "[Justices] possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Originally Posted by SoCalGirl (Post 2155741)

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.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2155687)

Today's ruling had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause.

Originally Posted by SoCalGirl (Post 2155790)

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.

Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 2155792)

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.

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi (Post 2155795)

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.

Originally Posted by TonyB06 (Post 2155805)

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.