The Affordable Healthcare Act in the U.S. Supreme Court -…

On March 28 2012 12:08 Defacer wrote:
I had a silly, ridiculous thought.

Let's pretend that instead of a individual mandate to purchase health insurance, people were denied emergency care UNLESS they had health insurance.

That would be a very dark and dystopic way of forcing everyone to pay for health insurance that would be constitutional. Unfortunately the worse possible fine is death. Whoops!

On March 28 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:
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.

On March 28 2012 12:08 Defacer wrote:
I had a silly, ridiculous thought.

Let's pretend that instead of a individual mandate to purchase health insurance, people were denied emergency care UNLESS they had health insurance.

That would be a very dark and dystopic way of forcing everyone to pay for health insurance that would be constitutional. Unfortunately the worse possible fine is death. Whoops!

On March 28 2012 09:59 tree.hugger wrote:
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.

On March 28 2012 13:44 Scorm wrote:
If this is passed, expect a serious decline in... Everything. It is proven in the past that when a government buys its position through favors that eventually they will run out of funds for the promises. At this point, the people will become angry and the government will change. Work for what you own, don't expect someone to pay for it. The government is already squandering millions on worthless projects and yet, we are going to give them more money and more of our autonomy because we cannot take care of ourselves? That sounds simply pathetic. We are immature and impulsive and it is no wonder why other countries mock us Americans. Yes, they have health care funded by the government, but that is what made America great: the ability to buy a better future through diligence and hard work. Obamacare is "free health care." Anyone pompous enough to believe such a thing is obviously ignorant. Nothing is free, someone somewhere paid for what you are saying is "free." We have to pay on this healthcare for four years before we get any benefits of it. Do you have to do this with a car or a house before you get to drive it or live in it? No. This absurdity goes to show that we cannot financially back this program and we are already seriously in debt because of Obama's foolish attempts at fixing the economy. Throw more money at the issue and it will solve itself? Really? Social security and Medicaid are going out, but we think we can support healthcare? Idiocy. Do not be so ignorant to think that this healthcare will solve anything. We amounted 10 trillion dollars of debt starting in the 1960's. Since Obama has been in office, we have amounted 4 trillion dollars of debt in the few brief years he derping around in the White House. His policy for solving problems: throw money at it. And if that does not work? Make a speech that motivates the ignorant populace into thinking there will be "change" and then throw more money at the problem just expecting it to get better. This "policy" has never worked for anything more than a temporary fix and the infection just gets worse when you try to cover it up.

If this gets passed, I may leave the country because American the Free will just be America once we get government health care. Please, get educated before you go thinking "free" health care is actually free. Nothing is free.

On March 24 2012 17:24 SniperSamS2 wrote:
it is through the necessary and proper and/with commerce clause in which obamacare may be constitutional. it depends how you define what is "necessary and proper" and also because "commerce" is basically everything everything related with money, congress may be able do it. it also depends on how the founding fathers thought the constitution should be interpreted. it is unreasonable to base American Fed law today on exact "word for word" of the constitution but also unreasonable to make almost everything under necessary and proper and commerce. the real question should be where the line is between what is necessary and what is just plain BS. i personally dont oppose universal health care but i do oppose obamacare which was passed when we were in debt with trillions of dollars.

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period (see Table 1, following the text).3 The net costs reflect:

[...]

CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.4

On March 28 2012 10:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Citizens United was also perfectly in tune with common sense and precedent, it all depends on which precedents you like and pick and choose.

On March 28 2012 13:48 BluePanther wrote:


Citzens United was a dumb decision. Yes, corporations are legally poeple, but that is for practical purposes. The reason for this is so that when a corporation makes an act, you are able to sue them in the equivalent manner as if it was a private citizen (respondeat superior and all that jazz makes having to sue the corp necc). Giving them substantive rights equivalent to actual citizens is not common sense and not really precedent. Does it make logical sense? Yes. But it isn't common sense.

On March 28 2012 13:57 xDaunt wrote:


Wtf kind of republican are you and how can say this kind of stuff after having worked for a republican politician? Citizen's United leveled the financial playing field that was previously tilted heavily in favor of democrats.

And yes, giving corporate entities rights does make sense, because, despite the legal fiction of the entity, behind every corporation are real people. Denying rights to corporations ultimately results in the denial of rights to the people behind the corporation.

On March 28 2012 13:57 xDaunt wrote:


Wtf kind of republican are you and how can say this kind of stuff after having worked for a republican politician? Citizen's United leveled the financial playing field that was previously tilted heavily in favor of democrats.

And yes, giving corporate entities rights does make sense, because, despite the legal fiction of the entity, behind every corporation are real people. Denying rights to corporations ultimately results in the denial of rights to the people behind the corporation.

On March 28 2012 14:14 Signet wrote:

I don't think it's possible to have both unlimited corporate financing of political campaigns and a free market economy. These entities that effectively control our politicians will seek to influence regulations, the tax code, etc in ways that give them huge advantages over their competition.

A Republican who wants the economy to be a level playing field between both established and upstart firms wouldn't want that kind of rent-seeking becoming (further) entrenched in our political system, even if it benefits their party.

On March 28 2012 14:11 paralleluniverse wrote:

Does not follow...

They are free to donate to and support political parties with their own money as private citizens.

On March 28 2012 14:28 xDaunt wrote:

That is not the point. The interests of a corporation are not the same as the interests of its individual owners. Because of this, corporations cannot rely upon their owners to pursue corporate interests with the same vigor that the corporation would (this is particularly true in corporations with large numbers of owners who each own relatively small interests). The corporation thus must be free to engage in various actions on its own accord --- including political lobbying and speech.

On March 28 2012 15:06 tree.hugger wrote:
I should remember to not argue with people on the internet. I was halfway through writing a long post, and then I realized, it wasn't going to convince anyone. All of you who've made it this far already have opinions, and internet opinions never change, so what's the point?