|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
Does anyone know how long the Court is likely to take before deciding? I know that today is the last day of oral debates, but I don't know if that means the decision will come today, in a week, or a year and a half...
|
On March 28 2012 23:34 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Show nested quote +Not surprisingly, Monday’s debut of Supreme Court argument over so-called “individual mandate” requiring everyone to buy health insurance revolved around epistemological niceties such as the meaning of a “fee” or a “tax.”
Behind all this is the brute fact that if the Court decides the individual mandate is an unconstitutional extension of federal authority, the entire law starts unraveling.
But with a bit of political jujitsu, the president could turn any such defeat into a victory for a single-payer healthcare system – Medicare for all.
... Source
There's no popular appetite for a "medicare for all" type of option. Anyone who brings it up will get crushed politically, especially given the current fiscal status of the country and the current budget problems with medicare. (For the record, I do support government-provided catastrophic health insurance).
I'm very interested in seeing what the Court does with today's oral arguments concerning whether the individual mandate can be severed from the rest of Obamacare. The Eleventh Circuit found that that it was severable. As a general rule, courts try really hard in these types of situations to sever unconstitutional provisions of statutory schemes in an effort to save the balance of the statutory scheme. I'm inclined to think that the Court will find an excuse to do that here.
|
On March 28 2012 23:54 Mordanis wrote:
Does anyone know how long the Court is likely to take before deciding? I know that today is the last day of oral debates, but I don't know if that means the decision will come today, in a week, or a year and a half...
Current guesstimate I think is either June or July.
|
On March 28 2012 23:39 XoXiDe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 17:06 Romantic wrote:On March 28 2012 16:01 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2012 15:10 BluePanther wrote: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?  Because, at least from my understanding, the conversation on this is actually being held by rather intelligent people. Intelligent people because everybody else is the dummie, not me. I can't believe you hold that opinion, for mine is logical and right. Individual mandate goes too far in asserting the federal government's control. I'm not going to go farther than what's already been discussed at the Supreme Court. Hoping they find it unconstitutional, and just as unconstitutional as mandating the purchase of a cell phone or broccoli by passing a law. It is quite clear this is nothing like a cell phone or brocolli. Cell phones and broccoli are not payment for another market everyone is a part of. It goes like this; the government can regulate how you pay for something once you have entered a market. Hell, it can then regulate all sorts of behavior in that market. Pro-mandate folks say you entered the healthcare market when you were born and thus acquired your health, or if you'd like, everyone alive is just in it. Healthcare is unique in that way. As such, the government could force you to buy private health insurance so long as you are in possession of your health and not exempt (Amish, Christian Scientists), just like they can force you to buy private car insurance for being in possession of\using a car. Kagan raised the exempt groups specifically when she said they'd have a better case if they were representing an abnormal group that refuses medicine and the medical practice. Anti-mandate lawyers tried to say car insurance (admitting forcing people to buy private car insurance isn't unconstitutional if the federal government decided to do it, not the states) and health insurance are different because you can avoid car insurance by not buying a car. Sure, you could also avoid being alive and in possession of your life if you really wanted to. You could join a religious group with an exemption. This objection does nothing other than further demonstrate the uniqueness of the healthcare market. Everyone is in it. Pointing out it is unique doesn't constitute an argument against using commerce clause power. There is no real dangerous precedent. I would agree with you. I like the way Justice Ginsburg explained it, at least I think it was her, I listened to most of the audio for the oral arguments. The government already forces people to pay for medicare and other things as Justice Breyer talked about, we already subsidize a large percent of the population for services we may never use or at least won't use for a very long time. The minimum coverage provision (individual mandate) just does this in a different way, to penalize people as an incentive for not purchasing insurance. Justice Sotomayor talked about this being an issue of timing, we are simply asking people to enter into the market before they need it, because its unrealistic for people to buy insurance at the time they need it and making the rest of us pay for it, it makes sense to have people purchase it before they get sick. To me the broccoli argument is ridiculous, we do not have a national crisis in access to purchase broccoli, and as Breyer spoke about, we do not have a national crisis in people buying cars and many people will never buy cars. We do have a national crisis with regards to health care, and in order to access healthcare you need health insurance. People who don't have insurance are making it even harder for themselves and others to get into the market because the costs just get higher as a result. Congress has the power to solve these national problems. The one thing that seemed unclear was what the limit was to this power, I didn't think the Solicitor General did a very good job explaining what that was.
The limit to this power is "interstate commerce".
Why does there need to be a limit to this power that bars broccoli from being regulated but not health insurance?
If broccoli was as integral a part of the interstate healthcare market as health insurance, then it should be able to be regulated too.
|
On March 29 2012 00:31 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 23:39 XoXiDe wrote:On March 28 2012 17:06 Romantic wrote:On March 28 2012 16:01 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2012 15:10 BluePanther wrote: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? Because, at least from my understanding, the conversation on this is actually being held by rather intelligent people. Intelligent people because everybody else is the dummie, not me. I can't believe you hold that opinion, for mine is logical and right. Individual mandate goes too far in asserting the federal government's control. I'm not going to go farther than what's already been discussed at the Supreme Court. Hoping they find it unconstitutional, and just as unconstitutional as mandating the purchase of a cell phone or broccoli by passing a law. It is quite clear this is nothing like a cell phone or brocolli. Cell phones and broccoli are not payment for another market everyone is a part of. It goes like this; the government can regulate how you pay for something once you have entered a market. Hell, it can then regulate all sorts of behavior in that market. Pro-mandate folks say you entered the healthcare market when you were born and thus acquired your health, or if you'd like, everyone alive is just in it. Healthcare is unique in that way. As such, the government could force you to buy private health insurance so long as you are in possession of your health and not exempt (Amish, Christian Scientists), just like they can force you to buy private car insurance for being in possession of\using a car. Kagan raised the exempt groups specifically when she said they'd have a better case if they were representing an abnormal group that refuses medicine and the medical practice. Anti-mandate lawyers tried to say car insurance (admitting forcing people to buy private car insurance isn't unconstitutional if the federal government decided to do it, not the states) and health insurance are different because you can avoid car insurance by not buying a car. Sure, you could also avoid being alive and in possession of your life if you really wanted to. You could join a religious group with an exemption. This objection does nothing other than further demonstrate the uniqueness of the healthcare market. Everyone is in it. Pointing out it is unique doesn't constitute an argument against using commerce clause power. There is no real dangerous precedent. I would agree with you. I like the way Justice Ginsburg explained it, at least I think it was her, I listened to most of the audio for the oral arguments. The government already forces people to pay for medicare and other things as Justice Breyer talked about, we already subsidize a large percent of the population for services we may never use or at least won't use for a very long time. The minimum coverage provision (individual mandate) just does this in a different way, to penalize people as an incentive for not purchasing insurance. Justice Sotomayor talked about this being an issue of timing, we are simply asking people to enter into the market before they need it, because its unrealistic for people to buy insurance at the time they need it and making the rest of us pay for it, it makes sense to have people purchase it before they get sick. To me the broccoli argument is ridiculous, we do not have a national crisis in access to purchase broccoli, and as Breyer spoke about, we do not have a national crisis in people buying cars and many people will never buy cars. We do have a national crisis with regards to health care, and in order to access healthcare you need health insurance. People who don't have insurance are making it even harder for themselves and others to get into the market because the costs just get higher as a result. Congress has the power to solve these national problems. The one thing that seemed unclear was what the limit was to this power, I didn't think the Solicitor General did a very good job explaining what that was. The limit to this power is "interstate commerce".
The Supreme Court is about to tell us otherwise.
|
On March 29 2012 00:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 23:34 ZeaL. wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Not surprisingly, Monday’s debut of Supreme Court argument over so-called “individual mandate” requiring everyone to buy health insurance revolved around epistemological niceties such as the meaning of a “fee” or a “tax.”
Behind all this is the brute fact that if the Court decides the individual mandate is an unconstitutional extension of federal authority, the entire law starts unraveling.
But with a bit of political jujitsu, the president could turn any such defeat into a victory for a single-payer healthcare system – Medicare for all.
... Source There's no popular appetite for a "medicare for all" type of option. Anyone who brings it up will get crushed politically, especially given the current fiscal status of the country and the current budget problems with medicare. (For the record, I do support government-provided catastrophic health insurance). I'm very interested in seeing what the Court does with today's oral arguments concerning whether the individual mandate can be severed from the rest of Obamacare. The Eleventh Circuit found that that it was severable. As a general rule, courts try really hard in these types of situations to sever unconstitutional provisions of statutory schemes in an effort to save the balance of the statutory scheme. I'm inclined to think that the Court will find an excuse to do that here.
That would be an absolute disaster, and is completely contrary to how insurance works.
Insurance companies work based off the idea of risk pooling, whereby healthy people subsidize sick people. If not everyone is forced to buy health insurance and that no one can be denied, the premium will skyrocket as mostly unhealthy people will buy it, while healthy people probably won't.
|
On March 29 2012 00:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 00:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 28 2012 23:39 XoXiDe wrote:On March 28 2012 17:06 Romantic wrote:On March 28 2012 16:01 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2012 15:10 BluePanther wrote: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? Because, at least from my understanding, the conversation on this is actually being held by rather intelligent people. Intelligent people because everybody else is the dummie, not me. I can't believe you hold that opinion, for mine is logical and right. Individual mandate goes too far in asserting the federal government's control. I'm not going to go farther than what's already been discussed at the Supreme Court. Hoping they find it unconstitutional, and just as unconstitutional as mandating the purchase of a cell phone or broccoli by passing a law. It is quite clear this is nothing like a cell phone or brocolli. Cell phones and broccoli are not payment for another market everyone is a part of. It goes like this; the government can regulate how you pay for something once you have entered a market. Hell, it can then regulate all sorts of behavior in that market. Pro-mandate folks say you entered the healthcare market when you were born and thus acquired your health, or if you'd like, everyone alive is just in it. Healthcare is unique in that way. As such, the government could force you to buy private health insurance so long as you are in possession of your health and not exempt (Amish, Christian Scientists), just like they can force you to buy private car insurance for being in possession of\using a car. Kagan raised the exempt groups specifically when she said they'd have a better case if they were representing an abnormal group that refuses medicine and the medical practice. Anti-mandate lawyers tried to say car insurance (admitting forcing people to buy private car insurance isn't unconstitutional if the federal government decided to do it, not the states) and health insurance are different because you can avoid car insurance by not buying a car. Sure, you could also avoid being alive and in possession of your life if you really wanted to. You could join a religious group with an exemption. This objection does nothing other than further demonstrate the uniqueness of the healthcare market. Everyone is in it. Pointing out it is unique doesn't constitute an argument against using commerce clause power. There is no real dangerous precedent. I would agree with you. I like the way Justice Ginsburg explained it, at least I think it was her, I listened to most of the audio for the oral arguments. The government already forces people to pay for medicare and other things as Justice Breyer talked about, we already subsidize a large percent of the population for services we may never use or at least won't use for a very long time. The minimum coverage provision (individual mandate) just does this in a different way, to penalize people as an incentive for not purchasing insurance. Justice Sotomayor talked about this being an issue of timing, we are simply asking people to enter into the market before they need it, because its unrealistic for people to buy insurance at the time they need it and making the rest of us pay for it, it makes sense to have people purchase it before they get sick. To me the broccoli argument is ridiculous, we do not have a national crisis in access to purchase broccoli, and as Breyer spoke about, we do not have a national crisis in people buying cars and many people will never buy cars. We do have a national crisis with regards to health care, and in order to access healthcare you need health insurance. People who don't have insurance are making it even harder for themselves and others to get into the market because the costs just get higher as a result. Congress has the power to solve these national problems. The one thing that seemed unclear was what the limit was to this power, I didn't think the Solicitor General did a very good job explaining what that was. The limit to this power is "interstate commerce". The Supreme Court is about to tell us otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause
I'm not a lawyer, but I see no limit to this power as described in the above article. Nor do I see why there needs to be a limit beyond what is written.
The entire law is a one-liner:
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
This says to me if health insurance is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it.If broccoli is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it. If burial insurance is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it.
Indeed, it says to me that if how fancy your suit looks is interstate commerce, then the government can regulate your fashion too.
|
On March 29 2012 00:46 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On March 29 2012 00:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 28 2012 23:39 XoXiDe wrote:On March 28 2012 17:06 Romantic wrote:On March 28 2012 16:01 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2012 15:10 BluePanther wrote: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? Because, at least from my understanding, the conversation on this is actually being held by rather intelligent people. Intelligent people because everybody else is the dummie, not me. I can't believe you hold that opinion, for mine is logical and right. Individual mandate goes too far in asserting the federal government's control. I'm not going to go farther than what's already been discussed at the Supreme Court. Hoping they find it unconstitutional, and just as unconstitutional as mandating the purchase of a cell phone or broccoli by passing a law. It is quite clear this is nothing like a cell phone or brocolli. Cell phones and broccoli are not payment for another market everyone is a part of. It goes like this; the government can regulate how you pay for something once you have entered a market. Hell, it can then regulate all sorts of behavior in that market. Pro-mandate folks say you entered the healthcare market when you were born and thus acquired your health, or if you'd like, everyone alive is just in it. Healthcare is unique in that way. As such, the government could force you to buy private health insurance so long as you are in possession of your health and not exempt (Amish, Christian Scientists), just like they can force you to buy private car insurance for being in possession of\using a car. Kagan raised the exempt groups specifically when she said they'd have a better case if they were representing an abnormal group that refuses medicine and the medical practice. Anti-mandate lawyers tried to say car insurance (admitting forcing people to buy private car insurance isn't unconstitutional if the federal government decided to do it, not the states) and health insurance are different because you can avoid car insurance by not buying a car. Sure, you could also avoid being alive and in possession of your life if you really wanted to. You could join a religious group with an exemption. This objection does nothing other than further demonstrate the uniqueness of the healthcare market. Everyone is in it. Pointing out it is unique doesn't constitute an argument against using commerce clause power. There is no real dangerous precedent. I would agree with you. I like the way Justice Ginsburg explained it, at least I think it was her, I listened to most of the audio for the oral arguments. The government already forces people to pay for medicare and other things as Justice Breyer talked about, we already subsidize a large percent of the population for services we may never use or at least won't use for a very long time. The minimum coverage provision (individual mandate) just does this in a different way, to penalize people as an incentive for not purchasing insurance. Justice Sotomayor talked about this being an issue of timing, we are simply asking people to enter into the market before they need it, because its unrealistic for people to buy insurance at the time they need it and making the rest of us pay for it, it makes sense to have people purchase it before they get sick. To me the broccoli argument is ridiculous, we do not have a national crisis in access to purchase broccoli, and as Breyer spoke about, we do not have a national crisis in people buying cars and many people will never buy cars. We do have a national crisis with regards to health care, and in order to access healthcare you need health insurance. People who don't have insurance are making it even harder for themselves and others to get into the market because the costs just get higher as a result. Congress has the power to solve these national problems. The one thing that seemed unclear was what the limit was to this power, I didn't think the Solicitor General did a very good job explaining what that was. The limit to this power is "interstate commerce". The Supreme Court is about to tell us otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clauseI'm not a lawyer, but I see no limit to this power as described in the above article. Nor do I see why there needs to be a limit beyond what is written. The entire law is a one-liner: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; This says to me if health insurance is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it.If broccoli is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it. If burial insurance is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it. Indeed, it says to me that if how fancy your suit looks is interstate commerce, then the government can regulate your fashion too.
You see no limit but the justices may see a limit in terms of the fed. Yes states can reserve the power under various interpretations to mandate auto insurance or health care but there is no precedent at the federal level.
Kennedy has been sounding extremely vigorous and pro-active, far more than I thought he would've been and he is surely the deciding vote. I too am surprised the court is going to take a crack at Commerce but it appears likely. Ironically the mandate is relatively of little consequence and the health bill may survive in the long term anyway. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/mandates-impact-may-be-limited-report-says/
The likely scenario at this point is the Court strikes the mandate along with the pre-existing conditions terms (as the Obama admin requested in case of a strike) and the health bill will find a way to survive anyway.
|
On March 29 2012 00:46 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On March 29 2012 00:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 28 2012 23:39 XoXiDe wrote:On March 28 2012 17:06 Romantic wrote:On March 28 2012 16:01 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2012 15:10 BluePanther wrote: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? Because, at least from my understanding, the conversation on this is actually being held by rather intelligent people. Intelligent people because everybody else is the dummie, not me. I can't believe you hold that opinion, for mine is logical and right. Individual mandate goes too far in asserting the federal government's control. I'm not going to go farther than what's already been discussed at the Supreme Court. Hoping they find it unconstitutional, and just as unconstitutional as mandating the purchase of a cell phone or broccoli by passing a law. It is quite clear this is nothing like a cell phone or brocolli. Cell phones and broccoli are not payment for another market everyone is a part of. It goes like this; the government can regulate how you pay for something once you have entered a market. Hell, it can then regulate all sorts of behavior in that market. Pro-mandate folks say you entered the healthcare market when you were born and thus acquired your health, or if you'd like, everyone alive is just in it. Healthcare is unique in that way. As such, the government could force you to buy private health insurance so long as you are in possession of your health and not exempt (Amish, Christian Scientists), just like they can force you to buy private car insurance for being in possession of\using a car. Kagan raised the exempt groups specifically when she said they'd have a better case if they were representing an abnormal group that refuses medicine and the medical practice. Anti-mandate lawyers tried to say car insurance (admitting forcing people to buy private car insurance isn't unconstitutional if the federal government decided to do it, not the states) and health insurance are different because you can avoid car insurance by not buying a car. Sure, you could also avoid being alive and in possession of your life if you really wanted to. You could join a religious group with an exemption. This objection does nothing other than further demonstrate the uniqueness of the healthcare market. Everyone is in it. Pointing out it is unique doesn't constitute an argument against using commerce clause power. There is no real dangerous precedent. I would agree with you. I like the way Justice Ginsburg explained it, at least I think it was her, I listened to most of the audio for the oral arguments. The government already forces people to pay for medicare and other things as Justice Breyer talked about, we already subsidize a large percent of the population for services we may never use or at least won't use for a very long time. The minimum coverage provision (individual mandate) just does this in a different way, to penalize people as an incentive for not purchasing insurance. Justice Sotomayor talked about this being an issue of timing, we are simply asking people to enter into the market before they need it, because its unrealistic for people to buy insurance at the time they need it and making the rest of us pay for it, it makes sense to have people purchase it before they get sick. To me the broccoli argument is ridiculous, we do not have a national crisis in access to purchase broccoli, and as Breyer spoke about, we do not have a national crisis in people buying cars and many people will never buy cars. We do have a national crisis with regards to health care, and in order to access healthcare you need health insurance. People who don't have insurance are making it even harder for themselves and others to get into the market because the costs just get higher as a result. Congress has the power to solve these national problems. The one thing that seemed unclear was what the limit was to this power, I didn't think the Solicitor General did a very good job explaining what that was. The limit to this power is "interstate commerce". The Supreme Court is about to tell us otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clauseI'm not a lawyer, but I see no limit to this power as described in the above article. Nor do I see why there needs to be a limit beyond what is written. The entire law is a one-liner: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; This says to me if health insurance is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it.If broccoli is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it. If burial insurance is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it. Indeed, it says to me that if how fancy your suit looks is interstate commerce, then the government can regulate your fashion too.
Which is why everyone is debating whether they are regulating existing commerce or whether they are forcing people to engage in commerce in order to regulate it. When people bring up the broccoli example, they aren't saying the government shouldn't be able to regulate broccoli, they are saying the government shouldn't be able to force people to purchase broccoli. That's not regulating existing commerce, that's creating commerce.
|
On March 29 2012 00:46 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On March 29 2012 00:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 28 2012 23:39 XoXiDe wrote:On March 28 2012 17:06 Romantic wrote:On March 28 2012 16:01 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2012 15:10 BluePanther wrote: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? Because, at least from my understanding, the conversation on this is actually being held by rather intelligent people. Intelligent people because everybody else is the dummie, not me. I can't believe you hold that opinion, for mine is logical and right. Individual mandate goes too far in asserting the federal government's control. I'm not going to go farther than what's already been discussed at the Supreme Court. Hoping they find it unconstitutional, and just as unconstitutional as mandating the purchase of a cell phone or broccoli by passing a law. It is quite clear this is nothing like a cell phone or brocolli. Cell phones and broccoli are not payment for another market everyone is a part of. It goes like this; the government can regulate how you pay for something once you have entered a market. Hell, it can then regulate all sorts of behavior in that market. Pro-mandate folks say you entered the healthcare market when you were born and thus acquired your health, or if you'd like, everyone alive is just in it. Healthcare is unique in that way. As such, the government could force you to buy private health insurance so long as you are in possession of your health and not exempt (Amish, Christian Scientists), just like they can force you to buy private car insurance for being in possession of\using a car. Kagan raised the exempt groups specifically when she said they'd have a better case if they were representing an abnormal group that refuses medicine and the medical practice. Anti-mandate lawyers tried to say car insurance (admitting forcing people to buy private car insurance isn't unconstitutional if the federal government decided to do it, not the states) and health insurance are different because you can avoid car insurance by not buying a car. Sure, you could also avoid being alive and in possession of your life if you really wanted to. You could join a religious group with an exemption. This objection does nothing other than further demonstrate the uniqueness of the healthcare market. Everyone is in it. Pointing out it is unique doesn't constitute an argument against using commerce clause power. There is no real dangerous precedent. I would agree with you. I like the way Justice Ginsburg explained it, at least I think it was her, I listened to most of the audio for the oral arguments. The government already forces people to pay for medicare and other things as Justice Breyer talked about, we already subsidize a large percent of the population for services we may never use or at least won't use for a very long time. The minimum coverage provision (individual mandate) just does this in a different way, to penalize people as an incentive for not purchasing insurance. Justice Sotomayor talked about this being an issue of timing, we are simply asking people to enter into the market before they need it, because its unrealistic for people to buy insurance at the time they need it and making the rest of us pay for it, it makes sense to have people purchase it before they get sick. To me the broccoli argument is ridiculous, we do not have a national crisis in access to purchase broccoli, and as Breyer spoke about, we do not have a national crisis in people buying cars and many people will never buy cars. We do have a national crisis with regards to health care, and in order to access healthcare you need health insurance. People who don't have insurance are making it even harder for themselves and others to get into the market because the costs just get higher as a result. Congress has the power to solve these national problems. The one thing that seemed unclear was what the limit was to this power, I didn't think the Solicitor General did a very good job explaining what that was. The limit to this power is "interstate commerce". The Supreme Court is about to tell us otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clauseI'm not a lawyer, but I see no limit to this power as described in the above article. Nor do I see why there needs to be a limit beyond what is written. The entire law is a one-liner: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; This says to me if health insurance is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it.If broccoli is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it. If burial insurance is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it. Indeed, it says to me that if how fancy your suit looks is interstate commerce, then the government can regulate your fashion too.
Well, I am a lawyer, and the matter is not as simple as looking at the strict language of the commerce clause. The Court will also consider the Necessary and Proper Clause, Tenth Amendment, and considerations of federalism, among other things.
|
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story
The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.
An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be "extraordinary" for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents' insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, "2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls," said Edwin Kneedler.
The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.
But the court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.
The justices are scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to debate the law's Medicaid expansion.
The chances of a 5-4 ruling striking down the mandate and the entire law improved significantly today after doing the same yesterday. Kennedy seems to be following Roberts and Roberts firmly put himself in the Scalia camp yesterday.
|
On March 29 2012 00:57 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 00:46 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 29 2012 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On March 29 2012 00:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 28 2012 23:39 XoXiDe wrote:On March 28 2012 17:06 Romantic wrote:On March 28 2012 16:01 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2012 15:10 BluePanther wrote: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? Because, at least from my understanding, the conversation on this is actually being held by rather intelligent people. Intelligent people because everybody else is the dummie, not me. I can't believe you hold that opinion, for mine is logical and right. Individual mandate goes too far in asserting the federal government's control. I'm not going to go farther than what's already been discussed at the Supreme Court. Hoping they find it unconstitutional, and just as unconstitutional as mandating the purchase of a cell phone or broccoli by passing a law. It is quite clear this is nothing like a cell phone or brocolli. Cell phones and broccoli are not payment for another market everyone is a part of. It goes like this; the government can regulate how you pay for something once you have entered a market. Hell, it can then regulate all sorts of behavior in that market. Pro-mandate folks say you entered the healthcare market when you were born and thus acquired your health, or if you'd like, everyone alive is just in it. Healthcare is unique in that way. As such, the government could force you to buy private health insurance so long as you are in possession of your health and not exempt (Amish, Christian Scientists), just like they can force you to buy private car insurance for being in possession of\using a car. Kagan raised the exempt groups specifically when she said they'd have a better case if they were representing an abnormal group that refuses medicine and the medical practice. Anti-mandate lawyers tried to say car insurance (admitting forcing people to buy private car insurance isn't unconstitutional if the federal government decided to do it, not the states) and health insurance are different because you can avoid car insurance by not buying a car. Sure, you could also avoid being alive and in possession of your life if you really wanted to. You could join a religious group with an exemption. This objection does nothing other than further demonstrate the uniqueness of the healthcare market. Everyone is in it. Pointing out it is unique doesn't constitute an argument against using commerce clause power. There is no real dangerous precedent. I would agree with you. I like the way Justice Ginsburg explained it, at least I think it was her, I listened to most of the audio for the oral arguments. The government already forces people to pay for medicare and other things as Justice Breyer talked about, we already subsidize a large percent of the population for services we may never use or at least won't use for a very long time. The minimum coverage provision (individual mandate) just does this in a different way, to penalize people as an incentive for not purchasing insurance. Justice Sotomayor talked about this being an issue of timing, we are simply asking people to enter into the market before they need it, because its unrealistic for people to buy insurance at the time they need it and making the rest of us pay for it, it makes sense to have people purchase it before they get sick. To me the broccoli argument is ridiculous, we do not have a national crisis in access to purchase broccoli, and as Breyer spoke about, we do not have a national crisis in people buying cars and many people will never buy cars. We do have a national crisis with regards to health care, and in order to access healthcare you need health insurance. People who don't have insurance are making it even harder for themselves and others to get into the market because the costs just get higher as a result. Congress has the power to solve these national problems. The one thing that seemed unclear was what the limit was to this power, I didn't think the Solicitor General did a very good job explaining what that was. The limit to this power is "interstate commerce". The Supreme Court is about to tell us otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clauseI'm not a lawyer, but I see no limit to this power as described in the above article. Nor do I see why there needs to be a limit beyond what is written. The entire law is a one-liner: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; This says to me if health insurance is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it.If broccoli is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it. If burial insurance is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it. Indeed, it says to me that if how fancy your suit looks is interstate commerce, then the government can regulate your fashion too. Which is why everyone is debating whether they are regulating existing commerce or whether they are forcing people to engage in commerce in order to regulate it. When people bring up the broccoli example, they aren't saying the government shouldn't be able to regulate broccoli, they are saying the government shouldn't be able to force people to purchase broccoli. That's not regulating existing commerce, that's creating commerce.
If there is already an interstate market for broccoli, then it's interstate commerce, and the government should be able to regulate it.
If the government creates an interstate market for broccoli through legal means, then there is a interstate market, and the government should be able to regulate it.
If the government indirectly creates an interstate market for broccoli through other legal means and incentives, then there's also a interstate market, and the government should be able to regulate it.
This seems obvious from a straight reading of the law.
And clearly there is an already existing interstate market for healthcare.
|
On March 29 2012 01:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.storyShow nested quote +The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.
An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be "extraordinary" for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents' insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, "2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls," said Edwin Kneedler.
The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.
But the court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.
The justices are scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to debate the law's Medicaid expansion. The chances of a 5-4 ruling striking down the mandate and the entire law improved significantly today after doing the same yesterday. Kennedy seems to be following Roberts and Roberts firmly put himself in the Scalia camp yesterday.
lol wow...a complete striking down on something this large hasn't happened in recent memory if it really happens, maybe 1930's with FDR.
|
On March 29 2012 01:09 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 01:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.storyThe Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.
An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be "extraordinary" for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents' insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, "2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls," said Edwin Kneedler.
The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.
But the court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.
The justices are scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to debate the law's Medicaid expansion. The chances of a 5-4 ruling striking down the mandate and the entire law improved significantly today after doing the same yesterday. Kennedy seems to be following Roberts and Roberts firmly put himself in the Scalia camp yesterday. lol wow...a complete striking down on something this large hasn't happened in recent memory if it really happens, maybe 1940's with FDR.
Exactly, which is why I said earlier that this will be the most important judicial decision in at least a generation and will be one of THE defining judicial decisions in US history.
|
If the government indirectly creates an interstate market for broccoli through other legal means and incentives, then there's also a interstate market, and the government should be able to regulate it.
This seems obvious from a straight reading of the law.
The government has no right to indirectly or directly create an interstate market for anything in order to regulate it. If they want to intervene in the market at the barest of dollars and cents level, there is a very constitutional way to do it, it's called taxation and government spending.
And clearly there is an already existing interstate market for healthcare.
Which the government already regulated heavily even before the passage of the ACA.
If the government wants to fantasize that it can directly compel me to spend my money in the fashion it dictates, the government can take a slow boat to China. They already have perfectly fine ways of taking money out of my pocket and spending it however they wish: taxation and appropriations bills.
|
On March 29 2012 01:07 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 00:57 liberal wrote:On March 29 2012 00:46 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 29 2012 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On March 29 2012 00:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 28 2012 23:39 XoXiDe wrote:On March 28 2012 17:06 Romantic wrote:On March 28 2012 16:01 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2012 15:10 BluePanther wrote: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? Because, at least from my understanding, the conversation on this is actually being held by rather intelligent people. Intelligent people because everybody else is the dummie, not me. I can't believe you hold that opinion, for mine is logical and right. Individual mandate goes too far in asserting the federal government's control. I'm not going to go farther than what's already been discussed at the Supreme Court. Hoping they find it unconstitutional, and just as unconstitutional as mandating the purchase of a cell phone or broccoli by passing a law. It is quite clear this is nothing like a cell phone or brocolli. Cell phones and broccoli are not payment for another market everyone is a part of. It goes like this; the government can regulate how you pay for something once you have entered a market. Hell, it can then regulate all sorts of behavior in that market. Pro-mandate folks say you entered the healthcare market when you were born and thus acquired your health, or if you'd like, everyone alive is just in it. Healthcare is unique in that way. As such, the government could force you to buy private health insurance so long as you are in possession of your health and not exempt (Amish, Christian Scientists), just like they can force you to buy private car insurance for being in possession of\using a car. Kagan raised the exempt groups specifically when she said they'd have a better case if they were representing an abnormal group that refuses medicine and the medical practice. Anti-mandate lawyers tried to say car insurance (admitting forcing people to buy private car insurance isn't unconstitutional if the federal government decided to do it, not the states) and health insurance are different because you can avoid car insurance by not buying a car. Sure, you could also avoid being alive and in possession of your life if you really wanted to. You could join a religious group with an exemption. This objection does nothing other than further demonstrate the uniqueness of the healthcare market. Everyone is in it. Pointing out it is unique doesn't constitute an argument against using commerce clause power. There is no real dangerous precedent. I would agree with you. I like the way Justice Ginsburg explained it, at least I think it was her, I listened to most of the audio for the oral arguments. The government already forces people to pay for medicare and other things as Justice Breyer talked about, we already subsidize a large percent of the population for services we may never use or at least won't use for a very long time. The minimum coverage provision (individual mandate) just does this in a different way, to penalize people as an incentive for not purchasing insurance. Justice Sotomayor talked about this being an issue of timing, we are simply asking people to enter into the market before they need it, because its unrealistic for people to buy insurance at the time they need it and making the rest of us pay for it, it makes sense to have people purchase it before they get sick. To me the broccoli argument is ridiculous, we do not have a national crisis in access to purchase broccoli, and as Breyer spoke about, we do not have a national crisis in people buying cars and many people will never buy cars. We do have a national crisis with regards to health care, and in order to access healthcare you need health insurance. People who don't have insurance are making it even harder for themselves and others to get into the market because the costs just get higher as a result. Congress has the power to solve these national problems. The one thing that seemed unclear was what the limit was to this power, I didn't think the Solicitor General did a very good job explaining what that was. The limit to this power is "interstate commerce". The Supreme Court is about to tell us otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clauseI'm not a lawyer, but I see no limit to this power as described in the above article. Nor do I see why there needs to be a limit beyond what is written. The entire law is a one-liner: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; This says to me if health insurance is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it.If broccoli is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it. If burial insurance is interstate commerce, the government can regulate it. Indeed, it says to me that if how fancy your suit looks is interstate commerce, then the government can regulate your fashion too. Which is why everyone is debating whether they are regulating existing commerce or whether they are forcing people to engage in commerce in order to regulate it. When people bring up the broccoli example, they aren't saying the government shouldn't be able to regulate broccoli, they are saying the government shouldn't be able to force people to purchase broccoli. That's not regulating existing commerce, that's creating commerce. If there is already an interstate market for broccoli, then it's interstate commerce, and the government should be able to regulate it. If the government creates an interstate market for broccoli through legal means, then there is a interstate market, and the government should be able to regulate it. If the government indirectly creates an interstate market for broccoli through other legal means and incentives, then there's also a interstate market, and the government should be able to regulate it. This seems obvious from a straight reading of the law. And clearly there is an already existing interstate market for healthcare.
The federal government can't just call something an interstate market so that it has the power to regulate it...
And actually, it's not a straight reading of the law. It used to be far more restrictive before the Raich decision a few years ago (medical marijuana case). The historical reading of the commerce clause has been rather restrictive, and they've only emboldened it to allow the government to regulate things such as drugs in recent years. But the readings basically say that they are sitll only regulating interstate commerce, and just because it's black market doesn't mean it's not commerce. I believe the reasoning they used was somthing along the lines of "if it's interstate commerce, and the government can regulate it, then the government can implement reasonable legislation that works towards regulating it." It got very broad out of basically nowhere and I have a feeling SCOTUS might hesitate to extend it again.
|
On March 29 2012 01:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +If the government indirectly creates an interstate market for broccoli through other legal means and incentives, then there's also a interstate market, and the government should be able to regulate it.
This seems obvious from a straight reading of the law. The government has no right to indirectly or directly create an interstate market for anything in order to regulate it. If they want to intervene in the market at the barest of dollars and cents level, there is a very constitutional way to do it, it's called taxation and government spending. Which the government already regulated heavily even before the passage of the ACA. If the government wants to fantasize that it can directly compel me to spend my money in the fashion it dictates, the government can take a slow boat to China. They already have perfectly fine ways of taking money out of my pocket and spending it however they wish: taxation and appropriations bills.
Wasn't the original idea exactly that, to tax people and make a public health care system, like every single other developed country in the entire world. But I believe this idea was killed by bipartisan compromise.
The current law is basically a clumsy way of simulating that original idea. They are mostly similar in effect.
|
On March 29 2012 01:22 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 01:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:If the government indirectly creates an interstate market for broccoli through other legal means and incentives, then there's also a interstate market, and the government should be able to regulate it.
This seems obvious from a straight reading of the law. The government has no right to indirectly or directly create an interstate market for anything in order to regulate it. If they want to intervene in the market at the barest of dollars and cents level, there is a very constitutional way to do it, it's called taxation and government spending. And clearly there is an already existing interstate market for healthcare. Which the government already regulated heavily even before the passage of the ACA. If the government wants to fantasize that it can directly compel me to spend my money in the fashion it dictates, the government can take a slow boat to China. They already have perfectly fine ways of taking money out of my pocket and spending it however they wish: taxation and appropriations bills. Wasn't the original idea exactly that, to tax people and make a public health care system, like every single other developed country in the entire world. But I believe this idea was killed by bipartisan compromise. The current law is basically a clumsy way of simulating that original idea. They are mostly similar in effect.
The whole point is that form -- how the government accomplishes something -- matters. Good intentions do not.
|
Wasn't the original idea exactly that, to tax people and make a public health care system, like every single other developed country in the entire world. But I believe this idea was killed by bipartisan compromise.
Doing it that way would have been even more unacceptable to the general public than the way they chose. Which you can like or dislike, but we do live in a democratic society where the power to govern is derived from the consent of the governed.
|
@paralleluniverse
The interstate commerce clause has given near blanket powers to the federal government, but it's the necessary and proper argument that gave them unlimited authority which is in the preamble and not the actual section of the constitution that grants enumerated powers.
You can't expect a federal branch, heavily influenced by federal politics, to ever not give the federal government whatever they want.
You want this law changed call your freaking congress person.......don't rely on the "ethics" of the courts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
