|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On March 28 2012 09:39 screamingpalm wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
But you can't really opt out of Social Security, and if the Government is running healthcare then premiums should drop, and profit margins should go down.
Additonally, the question is not whether the bill is good, it's whether it is constitutional, and I think that since Social Security is effectively the same thing on a different set of people, (you pay money for social security just as you would for obamacare) then the bill is just as consitutional.
That said, I disagree with the way Obamacare is going to be implemented, but that's not the debate in the supreme court, and the distinction was made clear multiple times during oral debate.
|
On March 28 2012 10:14 Happylime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 09:39 screamingpalm wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. But you can't really opt out of Social Security, and if the Government is running healthcare then premiums should drop, and profit margins should go down.
Right, my point is, if Obamacare was a non-profit, government-run, single payer system, I could agree with the point. Comparing Social Security with a for-profit, anti-trust exempt free market product is ridiculous (imo).
|
On March 28 2012 10:01 DeepElemBlues wrote: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.
False. Health care isn't an economic non-activity for anyone, becase everyone can potentially wind up in the emergency room.
If instead, emergency rooms simply let people die, or if the case in question was Christian Scientists choosing to opt out of health care entirely but still being forced to pay a penalty, then you would have a point.
|
Additonally, the question is not whether the bill is good, it's whether it is constitutional, and I think that since Social Security is effectively the same thing on a different set of people, (you pay money for social security just as you would for obamacare) then the bill is just as consitutional.
The point is that Congress taxes you to pay for Social Security. There is no Social Security Company that you go buy a Social Security Contract from and then get your Social Security when the contract says so.
The mandate forces you to enter into a contract with a company, not to pay a tax. They didn't want a tax because that would be a tax increase on every American which would not been politically tenable. Instead they tried to go down a new avenue and claim Congress could compel you to go buy a Health Insurance Contract from Health Insurance Company. The government can't and shouldn't do that. If it wants you to subsidize something for the common good, pass a tax.That's constitutional, and if it isn't politically popular, that shouldn't matter if it's the right thing to do, right?
False. Health care isn't an economic non-activity for anyone, becase everyone can potentially wind up in the emergency room.
If instead, emergency rooms simply let people die, or if the case in question was Christian Scientists choosing to opt out of health care entirely but still being forced to pay a penalty, then you would have a point.
Unfortunately this tired old assertion carries no water. In fact, almost all economic non-activity by someone results in a higher price by those who do undertake the activity. In the case of a product or service where scarcity has little to no impact, more consumers of the product or service drives the price down. There is no question of scarcity for financial instruments. In addition, for products or services where there is scarcity pressure, rising prices can force people out of the market, lowering consumption and thus again resulting in lower sales and profits. In either case, under the logic of this ridiculous argument being advanced by mandate supporters, the government can compel you to enter into the market in order to reach an economic end Congress deems desirable.
The point that the idea is to lower health insurance costs by spreading the cost among greater people is irrelevant to the larger point that that is just the particular aim of this legislation. Any economically desirous outcome Congress deems important enough to justify compulsion can be so compelled if the mandate is accepted as constitutional. Sorry, I don't think you or any other mandate supporters here are more knowledgeable or have spent more time studying the issue than the government's lawyers, and they have consistently been unable to articulate any kind of limit on the power of Congress to compel economic activity under the Commerce Clause if the mandate is upheld. Totally unable.
|
On March 28 2012 10:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:The mandate forces you to enter into a contract with a company, not to pay a tax. They didn't want a tax because that would be a tax increase on every American which would not been politically tenable. Instead they tried to go down a new avenue and claim Congress could compel you to go buy a Health Insurance Contract from Health Insurance Company. The government can't and shouldn't do that. If it wants you to subsidize something for the common good, pass a tax.That's constitutional, and if it isn't politically popular, that shouldn't matter if it's the right thing to do, right?
It works out to the same thing in practice (even down to the IRS treating this as a tax), but yeah, on paper they really should've just created a tax and offered a tax credit to people who have health insurance.
Unfortunately, politics takes precedence over the common good as always.
|
Whichever justice said it, that having a body thus requiring health insurance is like having a car and thus requiring car insurance, never really got a good answer to it. Did you become part of the healthcare market when you were born and thus acquired your health? Nothing may have gone wrong with your health yet, but the government could mandate private car insurance even though you've never crashed your car too. This would certainly make healthcare unique. The anti-mandate lawyer said something about "Cradle to the grave government" without actually addressing it. At another time he didn't question that such a thing would be valid, but said something about "well the relevant timeframe is 1 year and they might not use healthcare this year" somehow invalidated the comparison.
Edit: What I also got from this is that the first pro-mandate lawyer was an absolutely terrible person to put up there.
|
On March 28 2012 09:59 tree.hugger wrote:
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.
No, stare decisis certainly does not point to the mandate being constitutional. Go read the Lopez, Morrison, and Raich decisions. If you want to see the outer limits of commerce clause jurisprudence, go read Wickard v. Filburn.
|
It works out to the same thing in practice (even down to the IRS treating this as a tax), but yeah, on paper they really should've just created a tax and offered a tax credit to people who have health insurance.
Unfortunately, politics takes precedence over the common good as always.
It does not, because the mandate is not a revenue-generating product. That was admitted by Verecilli in oral argument yesterday. The IRS is treating it as a tax because that's what the Administration has told the IRS to do, as the IRS is the most convenient enforcement mechanism. Not because it is a tax.
If it were a tax, the money would be going into the government's coffers and then distributed out in the way any other constitutional social program such as Social Security or Medicare is. The money does not go to the government in the case of the mandate. It goes out directly to private companies or, after the exchanges are set up, through the exchanges to private companies. The government compels you to enter into contract in one way or another with a private entity.
Contracts that aren't freely entered upon by both parties have no standing in law. I think that is the argument the Court is most likely to use to strike down the mandate, which I am confident it will.
|
On March 28 2012 10:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:
That's constitutional, and if it isn't politically popular, that shouldn't matter if it's the right thing to do, right?
Though I doubt it will be, I wish this was the lesson the Democrats would learn from this. The plan Obama was pitching during his presidential campaign (basically ACA without the mandate and with a public option) would have probably stood up to Supreme Court review. He changed his mind while in office in an effort to win some bipartisan support and, relatedly, to try to make a bill that would not cost his party electoral support.
The bipartisan support never materialized, his party still got hammered in the midterms, and now they might not even have anything to show for it.
The entire health care reform process has been one tactical blunder after another from the Obama camp.
|
On March 28 2012 10:44 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 10:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:
That's constitutional, and if it isn't politically popular, that shouldn't matter if it's the right thing to do, right?
Though I doubt it will be, I wish this was the lesson the Democrats would learn from this. The plan Obama was pitching during his presidential campaign (basically ACA without the mandate and with a public option) would have probably stood up to Supreme Court review. He changed his mind while in office in an effort to win some bipartisan support and, relatedly, to try to make a bill that would not cost his party electoral support. The bipartisan support never materialized, his party still got hammered in the midterms, and now they might not even have anything to show for it. The entire health care reform process has been one tactical blunder after another from the Obama camp.
I wouldn't necessarily call it bipartisan support, at least not only. 'Bama had to get Blue Dog Democrats along for the ride too. They will all lose their elections for real Republicans anyway, but they certainly wanted to keep their seats
|
On March 28 2012 10:44 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 10:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:
That's constitutional, and if it isn't politically popular, that shouldn't matter if it's the right thing to do, right?
Though I doubt it will be, I wish this was the lesson the Democrats would learn from this. The plan Obama was pitching during his presidential campaign (basically ACA without the mandate and with a public option) would have probably stood up to Supreme Court review. He changed his mind while in office in an effort to win some bipartisan support and, relatedly, to try to make a bill that would not cost his party electoral support. The bipartisan support never materialized, his party still got hammered in the midterms, and now they might not even have anything to show for it. The entire health care reform process has been one tactical blunder after another from the Obama camp.
Those of us over on the far left tried to say so, but we were called by his press secretary... what was it... f-ing retards?
|
On March 28 2012 10:47 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 10:44 Signet wrote:On March 28 2012 10:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:
That's constitutional, and if it isn't politically popular, that shouldn't matter if it's the right thing to do, right?
Though I doubt it will be, I wish this was the lesson the Democrats would learn from this. The plan Obama was pitching during his presidential campaign (basically ACA without the mandate and with a public option) would have probably stood up to Supreme Court review. He changed his mind while in office in an effort to win some bipartisan support and, relatedly, to try to make a bill that would not cost his party electoral support. The bipartisan support never materialized, his party still got hammered in the midterms, and now they might not even have anything to show for it. The entire health care reform process has been one tactical blunder after another from the Obama camp. Those of us over on the far left tried to say so, but we were called by his press secretary... what was it... f-ing retards?
I still find it incredible that Gibbs ever got that job. He was incompetence personified with an asshole streak to boot -- everything that you don't want in a press secretary.
|
The only more incredible thing is that Jay Carney is possibly worse than Robert Gibbs. Gibbs may have been a jerk, but he was effective at being a jerk. Carney looks like a deer in the headlights half the time and the other half he tries to be a jerk but comes off as a wuss.
Those of us over on the far left tried to say so, but we were called by his press secretary... what was it... f-ing retards?
Unfortunately - well, for you and the Administration and the Democrats in Congress - if the Administration had listened to you, Obama would probably have no chance at reelection instead of a good chance and the Republicans would be gunning for veto-proof majorities in both chambers instead of trying to still take the Senate and preserve their hold on the house. A wishy-washy half-step towards outright socialized healthcare has caused a lot of opposition, but nothing compared to what single payer would have.
|
Unfortunately - well, for you and the Administration and the Democrats in Congress - if the Administration had listened to you, Obama would probably have no chance at reelection instead of a good chance and the Republicans would be gunning for veto-proof majorities in both chambers instead of trying to still take the Senate and preserve their hold on the house. A wishy-washy half-step towards outright socialized healthcare has caused a lot of opposition, but nothing compared to what single payer would have.
Perhaps, but if he's not going to take some chances, so what? Personally, I think people are craving for someone to do the right thing for a change, even if unpopular at first glance. We don't need any more pragmatists... we need some idealists for once (why does the GOP get them all? :D). If he gets re-elected it says more about the incompetent candidates coming from the GOP than anything else lol. What he could-have-been was immortalized for bringing long overdue health care reform- even if he didn't make it to a second term. He could have shaped the nation's debate more long-term instead of the short term folly we have. In any case I don't buy into the lesser of two evils mantra, I think this country's system of government is above that and can be mended in time- although some major systemic damage is being done (Citizen's United).
|
On March 28 2012 11:06 screamingpalm wrote:
Perhaps, but if he's not going to take some chances, so what? Personally, I think people are craving for someone to do the right thing for a change, even if unpopular at first glance. We don't need any more pragmatists... we need some idealists for once (why does the GOP get them all? :D). If he gets re-elected it says more about the incompetent candidates coming from the GOP than anything else lol. What he could-have-been was immortalized for bringing long overdue health care reform- even if he didn't make it to a second term. He could have shaped the nation's debate more long-term instead of the short term folly we have. In any case I don't buy into the lesser of two evils mantra, I think this country's system of government is above that and can be mended in time- although some major systemic damage is being done (Citizen's United).
Obama also didn't seem to actually believe in the single payer system. What he was proposing during the Democratic primaries was a series of reforms to the health insurance industry plus the creation of a "public option" government-run insurance corporation.
|
On March 28 2012 11:27 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 11:06 screamingpalm wrote:
Perhaps, but if he's not going to take some chances, so what? Personally, I think people are craving for someone to do the right thing for a change, even if unpopular at first glance. We don't need any more pragmatists... we need some idealists for once (why does the GOP get them all? :D). If he gets re-elected it says more about the incompetent candidates coming from the GOP than anything else lol. What he could-have-been was immortalized for bringing long overdue health care reform- even if he didn't make it to a second term. He could have shaped the nation's debate more long-term instead of the short term folly we have. In any case I don't buy into the lesser of two evils mantra, I think this country's system of government is above that and can be mended in time- although some major systemic damage is being done (Citizen's United). Obama also didn't seem to actually believe in the single payer system. What he was proposing during the Democratic primaries was a series of reforms to the health insurance industry plus the creation of a "public option" government-run insurance corporation.
Yes that's true (sortof- he filp-flopped a bit on it), but what really irks me is that single payer advocates didn't even get a seat at the table during the Baucus hearing to make the case. Who can even say how the public would have reacted to it had they had the chance to speak?
|
I don't for a moment believe that Obama would not push a single payor system if he thought that he could get away with it politically.
|
How is the individual mandate any different from that of Massachusetts other than being interstate (federal government)
Basically there's already a law (Thanks Mitt Romney!) that is effectively the same except on a smaller scale, and it's ridiculously easy to make the case that healthcare is an interstate issue and that the federal government therefore has jurisdiction over it.
States Rights issues usually end with the States not winning.
|
On March 28 2012 11:32 Happylime wrote:
How is the individual mandate any different from that of Massachusetts other than being interstate (federal government)
Basically there's already a law (Thanks Mitt Romney!) that is effectively the same except on a smaller scale, and it's ridiculously easy to make the case that healthcare is an interstate issue and that the federal government therefore has jurisdiction over it.
States Rights issues usually end with the States not winning.
It's already been said that companies are unable to sell health insurance from one state to another. That makes it intrastate commerce. Second states have powers the federal government doesn't have, and the federal government has powers the states don't have, and they are mutually exclusive. There is no overlap, and if you're saying that a state mandated health insurance is constitutional, then a federal plan obviously isn't.
The interstate commerce was specifically made because states have different laws and when two more more laws clashed with each other, it moved to the federal government to settle the dispute. One state produces apples, the other wants to import apples to sell. The producing state has a law that says all apples produced in the state must be sold for $5. The state that wants to import apples has a law that all apples must be sold at 9$. Now there are several ways that the state could deal with this little problem. Either one could repeal their apple sales price law, or one state could not export apples, or the other could not import them. The interstate commerce law was for the last option, which is how to solve how much these apples will be sold for. The law was never for controlling every interstate commerce that took place.
|
On March 28 2012 10:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:It does not, because the mandate is not a revenue-generating product. That was admitted by Verecilli in oral argument yesterday. The IRS is treating it as a tax because that's what the Administration has told the IRS to do, as the IRS is the most convenient enforcement mechanism. Not because it is a tax.
Taxes aren't used solely to generate revenue. They're also used in order to promote or discourage certain forms of economic behavior; e.g. the cigarette example proposed by Ginsburg.
On March 28 2012 10:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:If it were a tax, the money would be going into the government's coffers and then distributed out in the way any other constitutional social program such as Social Security or Medicare is. The money does not go to the government in the case of the mandate. It goes out directly to private companies or, after the exchanges are set up, through the exchanges to private companies. The government compels you to enter into contract in one way or another with a private entity.
You could apply the same argument to many different types of taxes to categorize them as compelled contracts (for example, taxes which pay for police/fire are essentially compelling you to contract with police/fire departments for their usage), so I don't find this very compelling.
On March 28 2012 10:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Contracts that aren't freely entered upon by both parties have no standing in law. I think that is the argument the Court is most likely to use to strike down the mandate, which I am confident it will.
I doubt this. None of the conservative justices focused on the idea that this is a contract. If this is struck down, it will be primarily on the basis that this does not qualify as interstate commerce so Congress has no power to enact it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
