|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On March 28 2012 04:07 Competent wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 02:21 MethodSC wrote:
How does one approve of Obamacare and at the same time think that it's unconstitutional? This baffles me(based off the polls on the 1st page) Well, one reason could be that the constitution isn't made of gold? The constitution can be wrong. I see no issue in finding approval with something all while acknowledging that it goes against a faulty piece of paper written by slave owners, and who thought women were undeserving of a vote. I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are using the word "constitutional" and the phrase "I think this is right" synonymously.
le sigh, I guess the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was also a faulty piece of paper written by slave owners who also thought women were undeserving of a vote. Also, every other political document advocating and advancing individual rights before circa 1950.
Is this what our education system puts out these days?
|
On March 28 2012 08:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 04:07 Competent wrote:On March 27 2012 02:21 MethodSC wrote:
How does one approve of Obamacare and at the same time think that it's unconstitutional? This baffles me(based off the polls on the 1st page) Well, one reason could be that the constitution isn't made of gold? The constitution can be wrong. I see no issue in finding approval with something all while acknowledging that it goes against a faulty piece of paper written by slave owners, and who thought women were undeserving of a vote. I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are using the word "constitutional" and the phrase "I think this is right" synonymously. le sigh, I guess the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was also a faulty piece of paper written by slave owners who also thought women were undeserving of a vote. Also, every other political document advocating and advancing individual rights before circa 1950. Is this what our education system puts out these days?
Your argument is basically "you're wrong"?
Yeah, there's a lot of right in there. Doesn't mean it's all right, nor that it will be right for all time.
|
On March 28 2012 07:42 xDaunt wrote:The discrepancy makes perfect sense when you realize that police powers are meant to be exercised solely by the states.
Since when? The federal government always had at least limited police powers, and these were greatly expanded in the 19th century by the Interstate Commerce Act.
|
I liked the slippery slope arguments put forth by Scalia. Opponents are saying that healthcare is a particular marketplace in which everyone will use, so it's different from other products since everyone is in the marketplace for it.
“Could you define the market — everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli,”
“[I]f people don’t buy cars, the price that those who do buy cars pay will have to be higher. So you could say in order to bring the price down, you are hurting these other people by not buying a car.”
|
On March 28 2012 08:39 Playguuu wrote:“Could you define the market — everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli,”
“[I]f people don’t buy cars, the price that those who do buy cars pay will have to be higher. So you could say in order to bring the price down, you are hurting these other people by not buying a car.”
It's a bad comparison. Your failure to buy broccoli or a car doesn't directly harm others. By contrast, your failure to buy health insurance directly harms other because you are more likely to transmit diseases.
Secondarily, if you don't buy broccoli or a car the federal government will not have to pay to buy you broccoli or your car anyway. By contrast, if you don't buy health insurance the federal government will have to pay for your health care when something happens to you.
I much prefer Scalia's argument that Obamacare suggests the federal government has the power to require exercise. That's a much more real consequence of the externality argument being advanced by proponents of Obamacare; if we penalize people who don't get health insurance (or subsidize people who do), can't we also penalize people who don't exercise (or subsidize people who do)?
|
On March 28 2012 08:56 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 08:39 Playguuu wrote:“Could you define the market — everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli,”
“[I]f people don’t buy cars, the price that those who do buy cars pay will have to be higher. So you could say in order to bring the price down, you are hurting these other people by not buying a car.” It's a bad comparison. Your failure to buy broccoli or a car doesn't directly harm others. By contrast, your failure to buy health insurance directly harms other because you are more likely to transmit diseases. Secondarily, if you don't buy broccoli or a car the federal government will not have to pay to buy you broccoli or your car anyway. By contrast, if you don't buy health insurance the federal government will have to pay for your health care when something happens to you. I much prefer Scalia's argument that Obamacare suggests the federal government has the power to require exercise. That's a much more real consequence of the externality argument being advanced by proponents of Obamacare; if we penalize people who don't get health insurance (or subsidize people who do), can't we also penalize people who don't exercise (or subsidize people who do)?
Hmm...
Just as a clarification: states can offer a individual mandate, so do states have the power to require exercise?
|
On March 28 2012 08:56 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 08:39 Playguuu wrote:“Could you define the market — everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli,”
“[I]f people don’t buy cars, the price that those who do buy cars pay will have to be higher. So you could say in order to bring the price down, you are hurting these other people by not buying a car.” It's a bad comparison. Your failure to buy broccoli or a car doesn't directly harm others. By contrast, your failure to buy health insurance directly harms other because you are more likely to transmit diseases. Secondarily, if you don't buy broccoli or a car the federal government will not have to pay to buy you broccoli or your car anyway. By contrast, if you don't buy health insurance the federal government will have to pay for your health care when something happens to you. I much prefer Scalia's argument that Obamacare suggests the federal government has the power to require exercise. That's a much more real consequence of the externality argument being advanced by proponents of Obamacare; if we penalize people who don't get health insurance (or subsidize people who do), can't we also penalize people who don't exercise (or subsidize people who do)?
Actually, if I don't buy an American car American's will suffer because they will go jobless. If I don't buy brocolli then they will suffer because I will become fat and have higher health costs, which in turn (with the law) will hurt others.
The reason for high health costs is the 70%(according to wikimed) of self-caused things. Like smoking turns into most cancers, being fat (which most Americans are fat) leads to heart disease.
So if we get a government mandated healthcare, it should also be implied that everyone should buy their own gym membership, only be allowed to eat certain foods, not be able to smoke or drink, etc. Because face it, in reality, if I live a healthy lifestyle and some fat guy wants my money for his surgery for a bypass on his heart, there's no way or in any fault of my own that I should be obligated to help him pay for it.
|
On March 28 2012 09:09 SySLeif wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 08:56 sunprince wrote:On March 28 2012 08:39 Playguuu wrote:“Could you define the market — everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli,”
“[I]f people don’t buy cars, the price that those who do buy cars pay will have to be higher. So you could say in order to bring the price down, you are hurting these other people by not buying a car.” It's a bad comparison. Your failure to buy broccoli or a car doesn't directly harm others. By contrast, your failure to buy health insurance directly harms other because you are more likely to transmit diseases. Secondarily, if you don't buy broccoli or a car the federal government will not have to pay to buy you broccoli or your car anyway. By contrast, if you don't buy health insurance the federal government will have to pay for your health care when something happens to you. I much prefer Scalia's argument that Obamacare suggests the federal government has the power to require exercise. That's a much more real consequence of the externality argument being advanced by proponents of Obamacare; if we penalize people who don't get health insurance (or subsidize people who do), can't we also penalize people who don't exercise (or subsidize people who do)? Actually, if I don't buy an American car American's will suffer because they will go jobless. If I don't buy brocolli then they will suffer because I will become fat and have higher health costs, which in turn (with the law) will hurt others. The reason for high health costs is the 70%(according to wikimed) of self-caused things. Like smoking turns into most cancers, being fat (which most Americans are fat) leads to heart disease. So if we get a government mandated healthcare, it should also be implied that everyone should buy their own gym membership, only be allowed to eat certain foods, not be able to smoke or drink, etc. Because face it, in reality, if I live a healthy lifestyle and some fat guy wants my money for his surgery for a bypass on his heart, there's no way or in any fault of my own that I should be obligated to help him pay for it.
Part of that can be mitigated by taxing aspects of lifestyles that lead to more health problems, so consumers are accountable to their choices, but still covered for their consequences. This could be pretty hard to do for things like food/obesity, though, so it's not a solution to everything.
|
On March 24 2012 14:15 xavra41 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 14:01 fox77 wrote:
I don't understand how Canada can have free health care? It's not free you pay through the ass with it in taxes.
I'd rather do that and be ensured coverage than put up with the system in this shit country. Honestly, I'd move to Europe in a heartbeat if I could.
|
On March 28 2012 05:40 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 04:07 BluePanther wrote:On March 28 2012 04:02 bblack wrote:Well that's a bit melodramatic isn't it? Even if it get's passed, I doubt it will have such a big impact as some seem to think. So many other decisions could be equally important (who becomes president, invade some new country yes/no, SOPA, etc).. And considering the fact that TL it a site about SC, I don't see why they should pay more attention than this. Actually, if it is allowed this will dramatically increase our federal governments power. The United States government isn't like most nation's governments. We really are 50 individual "nations" with an alliance under the constitution (think of it more like Europe with the federal government being the EU). Now, our constitution is much stronger/centralized compared to the EU, but it's the same concept. The federal government is limited in what it can do and what it cannot do. Mandating citizens to buy particular private products is not something they were permitted to do in the constitution and the supreme court would be reading that into it and making it precedent that they can. It may not be internationally important, but in the United States, this clause is a big part of the divide between Democrats and Repulibcans (ie, federal v. state power balances). It has very huge domestic political implications. The US isn't 50 individual nations. None of the states existed prior to entering the Union. The USA is a federation where states' participation is not voluntary. That is why the federal government moved to crush the Confederacy; they cannot withdraw from the Union because they have no authority other than through that Union.
It's a perspective thing, not a literal thing. It helps a non-american understand the relationship between states and the federal government if you think about it that way.
Also, "voluntary" is still up for debate I think (has SCOTUS made any rulings on this?). While the civil war pretty much set a precedent, it was more of a reflex to the "We're going home and we're taking our ball with us" attitude the South used rather than any actual doctrine of inability to leave... Honestly, I think if a State asked to leave under good terms for the union and not over a dispute when they didn't get their way, we wouldn't see that same reaction in the future. Not that any state is going to leave anytime soon, I'm just saying that I think it's diplomatically/constitutionally possible.
|
On March 28 2012 09:09 SySLeif wrote:Actually, if I don't buy an American car American's will suffer because they will go jobless. If I don't buy brocolli then they will suffer because I will become fat and have higher health costs, which in turn (with the law) will hurt others.
Those decisions don't directly harm other people (remember, whether a harm is proximate or not is a key legal concept). Furthermore, your arguments are pretty much bullshit, since not buying broccoli doesn't necessarily mean you will become fat (there are tons of other options, such as eating other healthy foods, eating less, exercising more, etc), and not buying a car means you're probably spending money on other things which create other jobs.
On March 28 2012 09:09 SySLeif wrote:The reason for high health costs is the 70%(according to wikimed) of self-caused things. Like smoking turns into most cancers, being fat (which most Americans are fat) leads to heart disease.
False. The reason for the high health costs in America, compared to other first-world nations, is that we have a largely for-profit health industry, and they set prices high. The pharmeceuticals industry and the medical device industry are two of the five most profitable industries, with profit margins of almost 20%.
On March 28 2012 09:09 SySLeif wrote:So if we get a government mandated healthcare, it should also be implied that everyone should buy their own gym membership, only be allowed to eat certain foods, not be able to smoke or drink, etc. Because face it, in reality, if I live a healthy lifestyle and some fat guy wants my money for his surgery for a bypass on his heart, there's no way or in any fault of my own that I should be obligated to help him pay for it.
Or alternatively, unhealthy people should be charged higher premiums.
|
On March 28 2012 09:11 Dfgj wrote:Part of that can be mitigated by taxing aspects of lifestyles that lead to more health problems, so consumers are accountable to their choices, but still covered for their consequences. This could be pretty hard to do for things like food/obesity, though, so it's not a solution to everything.
Accounting for externalities with regard to food/obesity is actually one of the easier things to do: tax unhealthy foods (it really doesn't help American obesity when fast/junk food is so cheap), and offer tax credits for purchasing gym memberships or exercise equipment.
|
Hey all,
for those that are curious, I found an interest graphic on what the impact would be if the ACA where kept intact, but without individual mandate.
The results are not good.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Since 100% of people will die doesn't healthcare effect 100% of people?
Since Healthcare has an effect on 100% of the population doesn't health insurance have to work for 100% of the population (that will get sick and die, or die in some disaster) in order to protect everyone?
Sure the Government isn't going to force you to buy wheat or Broccoli, but your choosing not to buy them doesn't directly cause prices on either item to go up, and since you're harming yourself by not eating you're going to be forced to eat food eventually anyways.
Anyways, I guess I'm just trying to say that since 100% of the population is effected and, at least in theory 20% of the population is not being serviced properly then the bill has to stand as constitutional no? I think it'll be ruled as constitutional by a fair margin when all is said and done, if only because Government has created commerce out of nothing, and Social Security is something we all have to buy into that we don't depend on to survive. (Overturning Obamacare effectively deems Social Security unconstitutional when you consider how they both work.)
|
On March 28 2012 07:40 DoubleReed wrote:
Well at the state level it's perfectly constitutional.
It's kind of weird. States can force their residents to buy goods, but the federal government can't?
I think it's a grey area personally. I think both sides have good points. I have no idea.
If there was a public option, would that make it better constitutionally?
The issue is not and has never been that "no government can do this," it's only that the Federal Government cannot do this. The Constitution states that all powers not granted to the Federal Government through the Constitution belong to the States. Federalism (the balance between the powers of state governments and the Federal Government) was a fundamental issue to the founding fathers.
We have some states already with mandates to purchase health care, but the Federal Government has no right (potentially) to mandate such a purchase. Having a public option would not change things. Even with the public option you would still need to have the individual mandate to make sure that people bought into at least one of the public/private plans. It wouldn't change the constitutionality of the situation at all.
The only thing that could "make it better" is a Constitutional Amendment. That is unlikely with how divisive the issue is in the States.
|
On March 28 2012 09:32 Happylime wrote:
Since 100% of people will die doesn't healthcare effect 100% of people?
Since Healthcare has an effect on 100% of the population doesn't health insurance have to work for 100% of the population (that will get sick and die, or die in some disaster) in order to protect everyone?
Sure the Government isn't going to force you to buy wheat or Broccoli, but your choosing not to buy them doesn't directly cause prices on either item to go up, and since you're harming yourself by not eating you're going to be forced to eat food eventually anyways.
Anyways, I guess I'm just trying to say that since 100% of the population is effected and, at least in theory 20% of the population is not being serviced properly then the bill has to stand as constitutional no? I think it'll be ruled as constitutional by a fair margin when all is said and done, if only because Government has created commerce out of nothing, and Social Security is something we all have to buy into that we don't depend on to survive. (Overturning Obamacare effectively deems Social Security unconstitutional when you consider how they both work.)
I disagree with Ginsburg's comparison with Social Security. If this was government-run, single payer universal health care, then sure. Forcing people to pay for something that is run for-profit (and also exempt from anti-trust laws) bothers me.
|
First Obama told the American people that Obamacare was not going to raise taxes. Then, in its very first defense of the law, Obama's lawyers argued before the district courts that the mandate constituted a tax. What a liar. Words have meaning. Ideas have consequences. I'm glad Obama isn't going to be able to squirm out of this legal obfuscation. If words are twisted to mean anything you want them to mean, then there will never be a limit on federal power. I'm glad that at least 5 justices seem to have the sense that if this law is constitutional, then there are no meaningful limits on the Commerce clause of the Constitution.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
The main issue, which the court did not seem receptive is that health care is a cost that is paid no matter what. Emergency rooms cannot turn patients down, and so if a patient who cannot pay is treated, then a patient who can pay will be forced to cover the cost of the patient who cannot.
That's why the Obama administration argued that this is not a case of 'forcing people to pay for something' as the poster above me suggests. Because people are already paying for it, there is no new market created; simply a mandate that everyone pay their fair share. A lot of people are in complete disbelief that the court was so hostile to this argument, most legal experts believed the anti-obamacare case had a snowball's shot in hell. It seemed obvious a day ago that health care is a unique case, but instead some smart people who theoretically should know better bought straight into the tea party rhetoric about mandating the purchase of broccoli.
Stare decisis, a majority of lower courts, and common sense all point to the individual mandate being plainly constitutional, in the same way the government mandates people buy car seats for young children, car insurance for their cars, or pay taxes to support the local fire prevention monopoly (fire department), the local police monopoly (police department), the local school monopoly (school system), and the host of other public goods that we share. Sure, you may not want to pay for the fire department, because the chances of your house burning down are small, or you may not want to buy a child's car seat because the chances of you getting in an accident are slim. But tough, your actions affect other people, and thus as part of the society we live in you need to purchase these things.
It'll be interesting to see how far SCOTUS takes this radical 'liberty' argument. The court's decision in this case could open up a ton of other government programs that have been settled law for decades to scrutiny and litigation. Most large government programs from the New Deal on are at stake if the court goes the direction they seemed to be leaning in today. It's frightening. Hilarious and deeply, deeply sad that the right complained for years about 'judicial activism' and now the Supremes have already overturned precedent and common sense in Citizens United, and might be about to do it again here. How incredibly, incredibly disappointing to watch.
|
Your argument is basically "you're wrong"?
Yeah, there's a lot of right in there. Doesn't mean it's all right, nor that it will be right for all time.
No, my argument is that ex post facto disapproval of certain aspects of historical figures' lives has nothing relevant to do with the worth of their life works especially in the area of developing political liberalism.
And I never said anything about it being all right or being right for all time, that's just silly generalizations masquerading as insight.
The main issue, which the court did not seem receptive is that health care is a cost that is paid no matter what. Emergency rooms cannot turn patients down, and so if a patient who cannot pay is treated, then a patient who can pay will be forced to cover the cost of the patient who cannot.
That's why the Obama administration argued that this is not a case of 'forcing people to pay for something' as the poster above me suggests. Because people are already paying for it, there is no new market created; simply a mandate that everyone pay their fair share. A lot of people are in complete disbelief that the court was so hostile to this argument, most legal experts believed the anti-obamacare case had a snowball's shot in hell. It seemed obvious a day ago that health care is a unique case, but instead some smart people who theoretically should know better bought straight into the tea party rhetoric about mandating the purchase of broccoli.
Using this argument any kind of economic non-activity - the choice not to buy a product or service, in the case of health insurance a financial instrument - has an aggregate impact on commerce and as such can be regulated by the Congress in almost any fashion the Congress so chooses.
Of course a lot of people are in disbelief, they thought they'd find a nifty loophole to drive a Mack truck through when it came to the government's ability to compel people to do things.
Unfortunately you can caricature the anti-mandate arguments all you wish, but it is obvious that you failed to consider the full scope and implications of the pro-mandate argument and so now you are in shock that the Justices would have the temerity to consider what you consider childish.
Stare decisis, a majority of lower courts, and common sense all point to the individual mandate being plainly constitutional, in the same way the government mandates people buy car seats for young children, car insurance for their cars, or pay taxes to support the local fire prevention monopoly (fire department), the local police monopoly (police department), the local school monopoly (school system), and the host of other public goods that we share. Sure, you may not want to pay for the fire department, because the chances of your house burning down are small, or you may not want to buy a child's car seat because the chances of you getting in an accident are slim. But tough, your actions affect other people, and thus as part of the society we live in you need to purchase these things.
Stare decisis and common sense point to no such thing, sorry =)
Unfortunately the mandate is not the same as any of those listed examples, as all save the ones regarding government or quasi-government services require a free choice on the part of the individual to initiate the ability of the government to regulate, and the rest are examples of taxes, not similar to the mandate at all. If the government had simply passed a tax instead of a mandate, there would be no case at the Supreme Court at the moment. Unfortunately for the government, a tax would have been even more politically unpopular and brought even more political losses than the historic ones in 2010, so they called it a mandate instead.
Tough indeed that the Court has expressed skepticism with an argument that essentially, as Justice Scalia pointed out, gives government a loophole to essentially unlimited powers under the Commerce Clause. All your economic decisions to purchase or not to purchase effect other people, again under this logic there is absolutely no economic decision that the Congress cannot "mandate" if it so chooses by pointing out the aggregate impact of individual choices on the economy. Needless to say, this kind of unlimited power is not exactly in sync with the idea of a limited government of enumerated powers created under the Constitution.
It'll be interesting to see how far SCOTUS takes this radical 'liberty' argument. The court's decision in this case could open up a ton of other government programs that have been settled law for decades to scrutiny and litigation. Most large government programs from the New Deal on are at stake if the court goes the direction they seemed to be leaning in today. It's frightening. Hilarious and deeply, deeply sad that the right complained for years about 'judicial activism' and now the Supremes have already overturned precedent and common sense in Citizens United, and might be about to do it again here. How incredibly, incredibly disappointing to watch.
Unfortunately, the only thing both sides agree upon is that the Congress compelling economic activity in order to regulate it is what is radical. The argument has been that the stakes in the situation are high enough that the government needs to restrict the choice of individuals for the common good. No matter how many adjectives you load your opinion up with, there's nothing radical about the liberty to have the government not compel you to do things the government has no business compelling you to do.
It's actually incredibly exhilarating to watch the Court finally start standing up to the ridiculous mission creep of government that has gripped those in power over the last decade. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad and portentous that they pissed away ~5 trillion dollars on "national security" in a decade and now want to piss away around the same amount on socioeconomic tinkering in a decade and not for one decade but for the indefinite future.
Citizens United was also perfectly in tune with common sense and precedent, it all depends on which precedents you like and pick and choose.
Anyway, if this is how supporters of this government overreach are feeling, then it has been an incredibly good day for freedom.
|
Fire, police, and school are all non-profit government-run organizations, nothing like the for-profit, anti trust exempt health insurance corporations. They are not treated like products on the free market. I don't think it's a fair comparison at all. I am all for a non-profit, single payer system, but single payer advocates didn't even get a seat at the table- and those who showed up at the hearings (the Baucus 8) were arrested. How can you even have a serious debate or discussion when you purposely silence ideas?
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/27-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.ahipcoverage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/STR_312_14_TheLink_Mandate_MarketReforms_Infographic_6.png)
