SCOTUS hears arguments for/against Healthcare bill

[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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

Scalia?! Made up?!!

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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?

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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Scalia?! Made up?!!

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.

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

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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

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

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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

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

Why does a person have to buy insurance if he/she doesn't need it or want it?

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!) ...

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?

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)?

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.

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.

[LAblondeGPhi]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

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.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

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.

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.

[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.

[LAblondeGPhi]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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.

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.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

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.