|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On March 29 2012 05:26 RCMDVA wrote:
So with the recaps I'm reading today... it looks like the individual mandate is dead. 5-4 at least, with a good shot at 6-3.
The only question they are wrestling with sounds like... Does the SCOTUS tell Congress they are killing the entire law, or just the individual mandate?
In the end, it's the same thing. Everything rides on young people being mandated to purchase insurance. So killing the individual mandate basically kills everything related to the new inflows of money.
But it is an important difference.
My law professors are saying it's too close to call. Although I will say one was positive everything would stand and after yesterday said it was a coinflip.
|
On March 29 2012 05:26 RCMDVA wrote:
So with the recaps I'm reading today... it looks like the individual mandate is dead. 5-4 at least, with a good shot at 6-3.
The only question they are wrestling with sounds like... Does the SCOTUS tell Congress they are killing the entire law, or just the individual mandate?
In the end, it's the same thing. Everything rides on young people being mandated to purchase insurance. So killing the individual mandate basically kills everything related to the new inflows of money.
But it is an important difference.
Well that's really the crux of the next battlefield since the mandate is basically dead. The impact of the mandate seems limited and insurers along with the Obama admin lobbied for backup plans in case the mandate is struck where the health care program would survive. The entire bill really doesn't rely on the mandate at all, contrary to the typically hyperbolic statements from justice Scalia.
Justice Kennedy's statements were rather confusing on the third day, I can't really seem to make out what he's implying. Many people (like SCOTUSBLOG and CNN) seem to be suggesting Kennedy will heir toward the side of retooling the bill instead of sending it back to "a hypothetical congress" in his own words. On the other hand the LA Times has Kennedy favoring Scalia's position of scrapping the entire law. It's basically impossible to make out what Kennedy is thinking about doing right now.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577283573328633152.html
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/mandates-impact-may-be-limited-report-says/
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-26/opinion/opinion_carroll-health-care-mandate_1_individual-mandate-insurance-health-care-reform?_s=PM:OPINION
|
Now in our country under our free-enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
*if you can afford it
**if you don't have a pre-existing condition
*** if you don't get so sick you exceed your life-time cap
|
On March 29 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 22:15 aristarchus wrote:On March 28 2012 22:05 JonnyBNoHo 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. Yes but if everyone is born into the market then it still raises the question of what limits on federal power remain. Since virtually everything you do or don't do impacts health then you could argue that the federal government can mandate anything under the aegis of health care regulation. If so then it would be an invalid interpretation of the constitution since it would violate the simple fact that there are limits on federal power. That's where the broccoli argument comes in. Broccoli is good for health and impacts health care therefore government can mandate its consumption as part of its unlimited power to regulate healthcare from cradle to grave. The founders wrote a standard for when something becomes a federal issue (interstate commerce) that now, due to technological advances in communication, transport, finance, and so forth, means that basically all economic regulation is a federal issue. I'd argue that was smart, since it means that federal power grows naturally to fit the need. You (and Alito, and others) might think it's bad because you like states rights. But that's not an argument that it's not in the constitution. In fact, the supreme court has ruled that the constitution does indeed give the federal government basically unlimited power in this area over and over and over again. It's only reconsidering now because it doesn't like what the federal government is doing with that power. Yes all commerce can be regulated by the federal government. BUT you can't force someone to participate in it. If you want to buy a car you have to adhere to the regulations BUT the government cannot force you to buy a car. That's an argument from the case itself on Tuesday and the answer was that healthcare is 'special' since everyone is in it. Well if true, the logic goes, then the federal government can compel a citizen to do ANYTHING under the aegis of health care regulation.
Could Congress force you to have a healthy BMI before driving because people with healthier BMIs sleep better and are less likely to crash? Hey, they are just regulating commerce! None of the justices disagreed Congress could compel the purchase of private insurance if you bought a car under their Commerce Clause power. I'm not seeing their coherent answer as to why Congress can do it for cars but not health. If Congress can regulate how car owners pay for crashes, why can't Congress regulate how people pay their healthcare costs?
If Congress can compel you to do crazy things just because those behaviors correlate to how another market performs, say, healthcare market, why doesn't that also apply to driving? I'm open to healthcare being uniquely something that the government can make you do all sorts of crazy shit, but I don't see it.
I believe one of the justices asked if a new wonderdrug came out that made everyone healthier, could the government mandate everyone purchase it and take it? Well, is that really limited to healthcare? Could the government force every driver to take a driving enhancing drug if they can make them buy car insurance? If we are going to make jumps from health insurance to broccoli, why can't we make a jump from car insurance and broccoli?
|
On March 29 2012 05:39 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 05:26 RCMDVA wrote:
So with the recaps I'm reading today... it looks like the individual mandate is dead. 5-4 at least, with a good shot at 6-3.
The only question they are wrestling with sounds like... Does the SCOTUS tell Congress they are killing the entire law, or just the individual mandate?
In the end, it's the same thing. Everything rides on young people being mandated to purchase insurance. So killing the individual mandate basically kills everything related to the new inflows of money.
But it is an important difference.
Well that's really the crux of the next battlefield since the mandate is basically dead. The impact of the mandate seems limited and insurers along with the Obama admin lobbied for backup plans in case the mandate is struck where the health care program would survive. The entire bill really doesn't rely on the mandate at all, contrary to the typically hyperbolic statements from justice Scalia. Justice Kennedy's statements were rather confusing on the third day, I can't really seem to make out what he's implying. Many people (like SCOTUSBLOG and CNN) seem to be suggesting Kennedy will heir toward the side of retooling the bill instead of sending it back to "a hypothetical congress" in his own words. On the other hand the LA Times has Kennedy favoring Scalia's position of scrapping the entire law. It's basically impossible to make out what Kennedy is thinking about doing right now. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577283573328633152.htmlhttp://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/mandates-impact-may-be-limited-report-says/http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-26/opinion/opinion_carroll-health-care-mandate_1_individual-mandate-insurance-health-care-reform?_s=PM:OPINION
How is the impact of the mandate limited?
Obamacare makes it illegal for insurance companies to reject someone because of pre-existing conditions. Thus, it would be dumb to buy insurance before expensive health issues occurred -- why would you? It's the exact same thing as having a law that allows you to buy car insurance after you've been in a crash. Who would voluntarily pay monthly premiums? It's because of that issue that the individual mandate was created.
I don't know how the the court will rule on the mandate or whether it can be severed from the rest of the law...but I don't see how the law can function without the mandate. So could you explain?
|
On March 29 2012 05:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 03:02 shaldengeki wrote:On March 29 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 28 2012 22:15 aristarchus wrote:On March 28 2012 22:05 JonnyBNoHo 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. Yes but if everyone is born into the market then it still raises the question of what limits on federal power remain. Since virtually everything you do or don't do impacts health then you could argue that the federal government can mandate anything under the aegis of health care regulation. If so then it would be an invalid interpretation of the constitution since it would violate the simple fact that there are limits on federal power. That's where the broccoli argument comes in. Broccoli is good for health and impacts health care therefore government can mandate its consumption as part of its unlimited power to regulate healthcare from cradle to grave. The founders wrote a standard for when something becomes a federal issue (interstate commerce) that now, due to technological advances in communication, transport, finance, and so forth, means that basically all economic regulation is a federal issue. I'd argue that was smart, since it means that federal power grows naturally to fit the need. You (and Alito, and others) might think it's bad because you like states rights. But that's not an argument that it's not in the constitution. In fact, the supreme court has ruled that the constitution does indeed give the federal government basically unlimited power in this area over and over and over again. It's only reconsidering now because it doesn't like what the federal government is doing with that power. Yes all commerce can be regulated by the federal government. BUT you can't force someone to participate in it. If you want to buy a car you have to adhere to the regulations BUT the government cannot force you to buy a car. That's an argument from the case itself on Tuesday and the answer was that healthcare is 'special' since everyone is in it. Well if true, the logic goes, then the federal government can compel a citizen to do ANYTHING under the aegis of health care regulation. Well this isn't exactly right. The market for healthcare insurance is an anomaly in this respect. Pretty much all other markets (according to modern economic theory, anyways) function differently insofar that a basic purchasing requirement would raise prices for everyone. You wouldn't be able to simply label, say, automobile or foodstuffs purchases as part of "healthcare" since the markets for both of those things function normally, as opposed to the healthcare insurance market, where a basic coverage requirement would actually lower prices for everyone. I disagree with your economic argument since forcing people to buy health insurance does not lower the cost. It shifts the cost to the healthy people that are now forced into the insurance pool. In the aggregate no costs are saved. Costs are only saved if people use the new insurance well for preventative care, which may not happen. Conversely, if an automaker has excess capacity then the cost per car can be lowered by mandating purchases. Regardless the simple fact that 'healthcare is different' doesn't grant Congress new powers. It still has limits under the constitution and those limits are what's being debated.
Well, I thought that the distinction between "lower prices" and "lower aggregate costs" was clear. I'm not sure why you think I'm making the argument you're attempting to refute.
Sure, it doesn't grant Congress new powers. One of the important issues that was talked about in the Supreme Court, though, was the need to find a limiting principle for this application of the power to regulate interstate commerce. If there is a strong limiting principle to this application of a pre-existing Constitutional authority, then to a large extent the biggest concerns regarding an expansion of federal powers is ameliorated in the Court's eyes.
|
On March 29 2012 05:47 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 05:39 forgottendreams wrote:On March 29 2012 05:26 RCMDVA wrote:
So with the recaps I'm reading today... it looks like the individual mandate is dead. 5-4 at least, with a good shot at 6-3.
The only question they are wrestling with sounds like... Does the SCOTUS tell Congress they are killing the entire law, or just the individual mandate?
In the end, it's the same thing. Everything rides on young people being mandated to purchase insurance. So killing the individual mandate basically kills everything related to the new inflows of money.
But it is an important difference.
Well that's really the crux of the next battlefield since the mandate is basically dead. The impact of the mandate seems limited and insurers along with the Obama admin lobbied for backup plans in case the mandate is struck where the health care program would survive. The entire bill really doesn't rely on the mandate at all, contrary to the typically hyperbolic statements from justice Scalia. Justice Kennedy's statements were rather confusing on the third day, I can't really seem to make out what he's implying. Many people (like SCOTUSBLOG and CNN) seem to be suggesting Kennedy will heir toward the side of retooling the bill instead of sending it back to "a hypothetical congress" in his own words. On the other hand the LA Times has Kennedy favoring Scalia's position of scrapping the entire law. It's basically impossible to make out what Kennedy is thinking about doing right now. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577283573328633152.htmlhttp://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/mandates-impact-may-be-limited-report-says/http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-26/opinion/opinion_carroll-health-care-mandate_1_individual-mandate-insurance-health-care-reform?_s=PM:OPINION How is the impact of the mandate limited? Obamacare makes it illegal for insurance companies to reject someone because of pre-existing conditions. Thus, it would be dumb to buy insurance before expensive health issues occurred -- why would you? It's the exact same thing as having a law that allows you to buy car insurance after you've been in a crash. Who would voluntarily pay monthly premiums? It's because of that issue that the individual mandate was created. I don't know how the the court will rule on the mandate or whether it can be severed from the rest of the law...but I don't see how the law can function without the mandate. So could you explain?
Alright well if you're not going to at least take the time to scan the links (which address most of your concerns) I won't even take the time to type up a reasonable response.
|
How does Canada find its money to pay for its citizens healthcare?
|
On March 29 2012 05:57 fox77 wrote:
How does Canada find its money to pay for its citizens healthcare?
Taxes and rationing of care.
|
On March 29 2012 05:54 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 05:47 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On March 29 2012 05:39 forgottendreams wrote:On March 29 2012 05:26 RCMDVA wrote:
So with the recaps I'm reading today... it looks like the individual mandate is dead. 5-4 at least, with a good shot at 6-3.
The only question they are wrestling with sounds like... Does the SCOTUS tell Congress they are killing the entire law, or just the individual mandate?
In the end, it's the same thing. Everything rides on young people being mandated to purchase insurance. So killing the individual mandate basically kills everything related to the new inflows of money.
But it is an important difference.
Well that's really the crux of the next battlefield since the mandate is basically dead. The impact of the mandate seems limited and insurers along with the Obama admin lobbied for backup plans in case the mandate is struck where the health care program would survive. The entire bill really doesn't rely on the mandate at all, contrary to the typically hyperbolic statements from justice Scalia. Justice Kennedy's statements were rather confusing on the third day, I can't really seem to make out what he's implying. Many people (like SCOTUSBLOG and CNN) seem to be suggesting Kennedy will heir toward the side of retooling the bill instead of sending it back to "a hypothetical congress" in his own words. On the other hand the LA Times has Kennedy favoring Scalia's position of scrapping the entire law. It's basically impossible to make out what Kennedy is thinking about doing right now. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577283573328633152.htmlhttp://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/mandates-impact-may-be-limited-report-says/http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-26/opinion/opinion_carroll-health-care-mandate_1_individual-mandate-insurance-health-care-reform?_s=PM:OPINION How is the impact of the mandate limited? Obamacare makes it illegal for insurance companies to reject someone because of pre-existing conditions. Thus, it would be dumb to buy insurance before expensive health issues occurred -- why would you? It's the exact same thing as having a law that allows you to buy car insurance after you've been in a crash. Who would voluntarily pay monthly premiums? It's because of that issue that the individual mandate was created. I don't know how the the court will rule on the mandate or whether it can be severed from the rest of the law...but I don't see how the law can function without the mandate. So could you explain? Alright well if you're not going to at least take the time to scan the links (which address most of your concerns) I won't even take the time to type up a reasonable response.
I read the links. And none of them address the simple concern I posted. That's why I was wondering if you could explain how the individual mandate being struck down is limited.
|
On March 29 2012 05:39 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 05:26 RCMDVA wrote:
So with the recaps I'm reading today... it looks like the individual mandate is dead. 5-4 at least, with a good shot at 6-3.
The only question they are wrestling with sounds like... Does the SCOTUS tell Congress they are killing the entire law, or just the individual mandate?
In the end, it's the same thing. Everything rides on young people being mandated to purchase insurance. So killing the individual mandate basically kills everything related to the new inflows of money.
But it is an important difference.
Well that's really the crux of the next battlefield since the mandate is basically dead. The impact of the mandate seems limited and insurers along with the Obama admin lobbied for backup plans in case the mandate is struck where the health care program would survive. The entire bill really doesn't rely on the mandate at all, contrary to the typically hyperbolic statements from justice Scalia. Justice Kennedy's statements were rather confusing on the third day, I can't really seem to make out what he's implying. Many people (like SCOTUSBLOG and CNN) seem to be suggesting Kennedy will heir toward the side of retooling the bill instead of sending it back to "a hypothetical congress" in his own words. On the other hand the LA Times has Kennedy favoring Scalia's position of scrapping the entire law. It's basically impossible to make out what Kennedy is thinking about doing right now.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577283573328633152.htmlhttp://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/mandates-impact-may-be-limited-report-says/http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-26/opinion/opinion_carroll-health-care-mandate_1_individual-mandate-insurance-health-care-reform?_s=PM:OPINION
This paragraph doesn't make any sense. The Court can't "retool" the law. There are only three options:
1) Obamacare stands in its entirety;
2) The individual mandate (or one of the other challenged provisions of Obamacare) is stricken, but the rest of the law stands; and
3) The entirety of Obamacare is stricken.
It's pretty clear from the questioning during oral arguments that 3) is the mostly likely outcome, with 1) being off the table.
|
On March 29 2012 06:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 05:39 forgottendreams wrote:On March 29 2012 05:26 RCMDVA wrote:
So with the recaps I'm reading today... it looks like the individual mandate is dead. 5-4 at least, with a good shot at 6-3.
The only question they are wrestling with sounds like... Does the SCOTUS tell Congress they are killing the entire law, or just the individual mandate?
In the end, it's the same thing. Everything rides on young people being mandated to purchase insurance. So killing the individual mandate basically kills everything related to the new inflows of money.
But it is an important difference.
Well that's really the crux of the next battlefield since the mandate is basically dead. The impact of the mandate seems limited and insurers along with the Obama admin lobbied for backup plans in case the mandate is struck where the health care program would survive. The entire bill really doesn't rely on the mandate at all, contrary to the typically hyperbolic statements from justice Scalia. Justice Kennedy's statements were rather confusing on the third day, I can't really seem to make out what he's implying. Many people (like SCOTUSBLOG and CNN) seem to be suggesting Kennedy will heir toward the side of retooling the bill instead of sending it back to "a hypothetical congress" in his own words. On the other hand the LA Times has Kennedy favoring Scalia's position of scrapping the entire law. It's basically impossible to make out what Kennedy is thinking about doing right now.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577283573328633152.htmlhttp://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/mandates-impact-may-be-limited-report-says/http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-26/opinion/opinion_carroll-health-care-mandate_1_individual-mandate-insurance-health-care-reform?_s=PM:OPINION This paragraph doesn't make any sense. The Court can't "retool" the law. There are only three options: 1) Obamacare stands in its entirety; 2) The individual mandate (or one of the other challenged provisions of Obamacare) is stricken, but the rest of the law stands; and 3) The entirety of Obamacare is stricken. It's pretty clear from the questioning during oral arguments that 3) is the mostly likely outcome, with 1) being off the table.
What I meant by "retooling" is that the justices would comb through the text and decide which provisions will ultimately be struck along with the mandate (if any else). As far as the most likely outcome, that's anyone's guess and we can place bets over it or something.
|
May I ask, just for clarification where the individual mandate fails to meet the constitution and past judicial rulings?
I know that sometimes the supreme court derps pretty hard, but to me it looks like it's constitutional for the federal government to do it if massachusetts can do it, so long as they prove that interstate commerce is being negotiated in this instance?
|
On March 29 2012 05:47 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 28 2012 22:15 aristarchus wrote:On March 28 2012 22:05 JonnyBNoHo 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. Yes but if everyone is born into the market then it still raises the question of what limits on federal power remain. Since virtually everything you do or don't do impacts health then you could argue that the federal government can mandate anything under the aegis of health care regulation. If so then it would be an invalid interpretation of the constitution since it would violate the simple fact that there are limits on federal power. That's where the broccoli argument comes in. Broccoli is good for health and impacts health care therefore government can mandate its consumption as part of its unlimited power to regulate healthcare from cradle to grave. The founders wrote a standard for when something becomes a federal issue (interstate commerce) that now, due to technological advances in communication, transport, finance, and so forth, means that basically all economic regulation is a federal issue. I'd argue that was smart, since it means that federal power grows naturally to fit the need. You (and Alito, and others) might think it's bad because you like states rights. But that's not an argument that it's not in the constitution. In fact, the supreme court has ruled that the constitution does indeed give the federal government basically unlimited power in this area over and over and over again. It's only reconsidering now because it doesn't like what the federal government is doing with that power. Yes all commerce can be regulated by the federal government. BUT you can't force someone to participate in it. If you want to buy a car you have to adhere to the regulations BUT the government cannot force you to buy a car. That's an argument from the case itself on Tuesday and the answer was that healthcare is 'special' since everyone is in it. Well if true, the logic goes, then the federal government can compel a citizen to do ANYTHING under the aegis of health care regulation. Could Congress force you to have a healthy BMI before driving because people with healthier BMIs sleep better and are less likely to crash? Hey, they are just regulating commerce! None of the justices disagreed Congress could compel the purchase of private insurance if you bought a car under their Commerce Clause power. I'm not seeing their coherent answer as to why Congress can do it for cars but not health. If Congress can regulate how car owners pay for crashes, why can't Congress regulate how people pay their healthcare costs? If Congress can compel you to do crazy things just because those behaviors correlate to how another market performs, say, healthcare market, why doesn't that also apply to driving? I'm open to healthcare being uniquely something that the government can make you do all sorts of crazy shit, but I don't see it. I believe one of the justices asked if a new wonderdrug came out that made everyone healthier, could the government mandate everyone purchase it and take it? Well, is that really limited to healthcare? Could the government force every driver to take a driving enhancing drug if they can make them buy car insurance? If we are going to make jumps from health insurance to broccoli, why can't we make a jump from car insurance and broccoli?
This has been repeated over and over... First of all, state's have rights that the federal government does not, and states can compel you in ways the federal government cannot, but that is not the central issue here.
If you own a car and are driving it, you are already engaged in commerce. Those who are already engaged in commerce can have their behavior regulated. What people are objecting to here is that people are being forced to engage in commerce that they weren't previously, for the means of regulating their commerce.
It's exactly the same with the broccoli example. If you are already purchasing broccoli, then you can be regulated for it. But you can't be forced to purchase broccoli, just as you can't be forced to buy the car which will require the insurance.
On March 29 2012 05:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I disagree with your economic argument since forcing people to buy health insurance does not lower the cost. It shifts the cost to the healthy people that are now forced into the insurance pool. In the aggregate no costs are saved.
Another excellent point we should keep in mind. You said it better than I could.
|
On March 29 2012 05:57 fox77 wrote:
How does Canada find its money to pay for its citizens healthcare?
Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world similar to the united states in per capita income. The difference is they have absolutely no army and the US has the largest ever. They have a lot less overhead.
P.S. The United states actually spends more per citizen on healthcare.....so essentially our system just plain sucks.
|
Canada11367 Posts
I wonder if this get's struck down are Obama's contenders so weak that he can turn this into an election issue? As in full on promising universal (not socialized) healthcare? Publically funded, privately provided and given to the states to administer given x guidelines. Block transfer payments or something like that.
Because if it did become a campaign issue and he wins on it, it gives him a little more strength to try something similar even if Obamacare ends up being the sacrificial lamb. I wanted to say it would give Obama a strong mandate, but then I remembered the entire system is so hamstrung that no-one can actually do anything.
If his opponents were strong, it wouldn't work. "Commy's are coming" and all that. But without a real challenger, it could work.
Edit
And yeah, for Canadians 'somehow' getting the money for our healthcare. Per capita our healthcare is half that of the Americans. So much for private enterprise being the cheapest for value. But the thing is, it isn't government running our healthcare. They just fund it (fee for service) and lay out guidelines like the Canadian Healthcare Act. Doctors aren't state employees. Hospitals are autonomous institutions often run by regional health boards. And provinces can individualize it.
Which I think is probably the path of least resistance for America. I don't think you could have a centralized healthcare like the UK as US is just as spread out as Canada and states are just as concerned with provinces with giving up power to the federal government.
|
On March 29 2012 06:18 Happylime wrote:
May I ask, just for clarification where the individual mandate fails to meet the constitution and past judicial rulings?
I know that sometimes the supreme court derps pretty hard, but to me it looks like it's constitutional for the federal government to do it if massachusetts can do it, so long as they prove that interstate commerce is being negotiated in this instance?
Whether Massahcusetts can pass an individual mandate is irrelevant to whether the US can do so. The federal and state governments operate under different rules.
There is no explicit Supreme Court ruling that governs whether the individual mandate is Constitutional. If you want to have a look at the lay of the land concerning recent commerce clause jurisprudence, go read the Lopez, Morrison, and Raich decisions. If you want to see the most expansive reading of the commerce clause issued so far, go read Wickard v. Filburn.
As I have said repeatedly, the sum of these decisions and the current composition of the Court make it far more likely than not that the individual mandate will be found to be unconstitutional.
|
On March 29 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 05:57 fox77 wrote:
How does Canada find its money to pay for its citizens healthcare? Taxes and rationing of care.
Quick outline of the differences.
Under the principle of comprehensiveness underlying the Canada Health Act, provincial health insurance plans must cover all medically necessary hospital services, physicians’ services, and certain surgical dental procedures. Provincial governments also have considerable flexibility in terms of the range of services they may provide. They may and do include other benefits, such as prescription drugs for the poor and the elderly that are not required under the federal guidelines. There are no dollar limits to the amount of "necessary" medical care that individuals may receive. Private health insurance covers uninsured services.
The extent of benefits in the United States varies widely among insurers. Most insurance sold by private companies is regulated by the state, and therefore must provide state-mandated minimum benefits. Self-insured employer plans, which do not fall under the jurisdiction of state insurance laws, cover about half of insured workers. Employment does not, however, guarantee coverage. As a matter of fact, among the 35 million Americans without any insurance, 25 million are in families where at least one member has a full-time job.(5) Some firms, particularly small businesses, do not offer health insurance to their employees. This presents a potentially significant impediment to moving from one job to another – a situation not found in Canada. Furthermore, when working people retire, they lose the health insurance benefits provided by the employer, and, as we have seen, Medicare provides standard benefits to only some Americans.
So in Canada taxes cover all necessary services, provinces add a little something extra, but additional insurance can be and is often purchased (usually through employers that offer it).
|
On March 29 2012 06:24 Falling wrote:
I wonder if this get's struck down are Obama's contenders so weak that he can turn this into an election issue? As in full on promising universal (not socialized) healthcare? Publically funded, privately provided and given to the states to administer given x guidelines. Block transfer payments or something like that.
Because if it did become a campaign issue and he wins on it, it gives him a little more strength to try something similar even if Obamacare ends up being the sacrificial lamb. I wanted to say it would give Obama a strong mandate, but then I remembered the entire system is so hamstrung that no-one can actually do anything.
If his opponents were strong, it wouldn't work. "Commy's are coming" and all that. But without a real challenger, it could work.
I may be wrong, but I don't think such promises would get anywhere because he couldn't get a bill like that through the house or the senate.
|
On March 29 2012 06:21 Thenerf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 05:57 fox77 wrote:
How does Canada find its money to pay for its citizens healthcare? Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world similar to the united states in per capita income. The difference is they have absolutely no army and the US has the largest ever. They have a lot less overhead. P.S. The United states actually spends more per citizen on healthcare.....so essentially our system just plain sucks.
And I think you have the lowest life-expectancy and highest infant mortality rate out of the G20/first world countries. You guys need to do something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
