SCOTUS hears arguments for/against Healthcare bill

[Ghostwriter]

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

Ultimately, if the voters thought the gun law was a dumb law, they'd vote for someone else. Eventually, the government is accountable.

And of course there are limits. If you don't want a gun, just pay the tax. Easy peasy.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ultimately, if the voters thought the gun law was a dumb law, they'd vote for someone else. Eventually, the government is accountable.

And of course there are limits. If you don't want a gun, just pay the tax. Easy peasy.

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.”

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

See "Militia Act of 1792".

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

See "Militia Act of 1792".

Nice talking point but it doesn't have much bearing on "precedent" as it relates to the health Care debate. The "Militia Act of 1903" replaced it with a state controlled National Guard.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Nice talking point but it doesn't have much bearing on "precedent" as it relates to the health Care debate. The "Militia Act of 1903" replaced it with a state controlled National Guard.

Congress has had, for over two hundred years, the right to make someone buy something, and it has not caused the demise of society. Neither will today's ruling.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Congress has had, for over two hundred years, the right to make someone buy something, and it has not caused the demise of society. Neither will today's ruling.

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."...

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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."...

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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by IUHoosiergirl88

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?

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

Originally Posted by Beryana

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'. . . .

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.

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Nice talking point but it doesn't have much bearing on "precedent" as it relates to the health Care debate. The "Militia Act of 1903" replaced it with a state controlled National Guard.

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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

See above.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

See above.

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?

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

[LAblondeGPhi]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

The government already MAKES you do plenty of things: pay/file taxes, obey laws, sign up for selective service if you're male and over 18, go to some kind of school for a certain number of years, etc.

Like others have said, the limits are set by the representatives WE elect to office. They are responsible to us, and therefore WE are the ones who ultimately decide those limits.