|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On March 29 2012 11:58 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 06:36 Falling wrote:On March 29 2012 06:29 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: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. Yeah, halfway through I began how much easier it is to deadlock things than to govern in the US. If it was a parliamentary system, it would be much easier. What's the quote? The gears of government grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine? Sometimes not being able to get shit done can be a good thing.
Exactly. The purpose of the government was not originally seen as a vehicle to solve every problem society could ever experience, but to provide a basic framework by which a free society could exist.
If the government was all about efficiency, we wouldn't have checks and balances, separation of powers, 3 competing branches, a bill of rights or enumerated powers. We shouldn't want the government to get certain things done. People just disagree on what those things should be.
|
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.
You are born a ward of the state, and you die a ward of the state. That's what I'm seeing when I read about being born into this market and it affecting some government regulation naturally. Health care is not this unique field that is exempt from normal freedom protections guaranteed in the Constitution. You're rich, you can afford to fly to the best doctor in the country and get operated on. You're poor, you get inferior care, but still good care. I also eat better than somebody without a job, and we're both free to buy as we choose.
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.
No, just no. I'm in the market of buying food because I was born. Does the government possess the right to regulate what I buy to eat because I'm part of a market everybody is part of? If I decide not to purchase a cell phone, this may affect my ability to report crimes and call for an ambulance, affecting those around me. Does the government possess the right to force my purchase of a cell phone and cell phone service because I'm in the market of reporting crimes and calling for help? Or do I possess that right? I stand against that.
|
people pay for prison and criminals. Criminals even get a a form of health care. but people dont like helping people that arent criminals?
|
On March 29 2012 13:17 Danglars wrote:You are born a ward of the state, and you die a ward of the state. That's what I'm seeing when I read about being born into this market and it affecting some government regulation naturally. Health care is not this unique field that is exempt from normal freedom protections guaranteed in the Constitution. You're rich, you can afford to fly to the best doctor in the country and get operated on. You're poor, you get inferior care, but still good care. I also eat better than somebody without a job, and we're both free to buy as we choose.
The part you missed is that health care is a unique case.
That's because you get emergency care whether or not you paid for it (Reagan's fault, by the way) and because your health impacts others due to the nature of infectious diseases.
As soon as you're born, you're entitled to emergency health care, so you're already in the market. I guess it wouldn't be a problem if you opted out of that (think Christian Scientists), but they do have a waiver for it if you do.
|
The ideal result for me would be having the Supreme Court strike down the individual mandate for purchasing healthcare
and keeping the rest of the actual bill. All in all, it would be difficult to deny the advantages for both near-and-long term futures.
Questions of constitutionality is just a facade to me underneath the playing politics ploy anyways...
I doubt the plan would immediately be dried up of funds anyways. Especially considering that health insurance companies wouldn't exactly stave away from eventual embezzlement and probably cheating from paying their necessary dues.
|
On March 29 2012 13:30 raf3776 wrote:
people pay for prison and criminals. Criminals even get a a form of health care. but people dont like helping people that arent criminals?
Many, perhaps most, people don't really like paying for these services for criminals either. But the courts would probably find that holding prisoners and denying them medical services is cruel and unusual punishment.
|
On March 29 2012 13:57 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 13:17 Danglars wrote:You are born a ward of the state, and you die a ward of the state. That's what I'm seeing when I read about being born into this market and it affecting some government regulation naturally. Health care is not this unique field that is exempt from normal freedom protections guaranteed in the Constitution. You're rich, you can afford to fly to the best doctor in the country and get operated on. You're poor, you get inferior care, but still good care. I also eat better than somebody without a job, and we're both free to buy as we choose. The part you missed is that health care is a unique case. That's because you get emergency care whether or not you paid for it (Reagan's fault, by the way) and because your health impacts others due to the nature of infectious diseases. As soon as you're born, you're entitled to emergency health care, so you're already in the market. I guess it wouldn't be a problem if you opted out of that (think Christian Scientists), but they do have a waiver for it if you do.
How can you possibly argue that it is unique because it affects others? Literally everything you do affects others. Everything.
Driving a car affects the people on the road. The speed and manner you drive affects others. Your weight affects others. Your speech affects others. The number of children you choose to have, the place you choose to live, it all affects everyone around you.
When you are born, you need food. Aren't people entitled to food just like emergency care? And so you are born into the food market, just like you are born into the health care market. The food you choose to eat affects others. If you eat food that makes you obese, it has a direct cost on the health care premiums that others have to pay. And so food is unique and they can make you purchase broccoli.
There is no limiting factor in these arguments. There is nothing that uniquely distinguishes health care from everything else. Everything is interconnected. Every action affects another action. Every inaction has consequences.
As soon as you are born, you require shelter. Your shelter has a direct influence on others because we all share the same space. And so you are born into the housing market, a market that's unique. As soon as you are born, you require waste management and sewer systems to take care of your waste. Without proper disposal, your waste will directly harm other people and can make people sick. You are born into the waste management and sewer market, a market that's unique.
It is a completely meaningless argument for trying to get around the obvious fact that with this mandate the government is creating commerce and not regulating existing commerce at the individual level.
|
On March 29 2012 15:07 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 13:57 sunprince wrote:On March 29 2012 13:17 Danglars wrote:You are born a ward of the state, and you die a ward of the state. That's what I'm seeing when I read about being born into this market and it affecting some government regulation naturally. Health care is not this unique field that is exempt from normal freedom protections guaranteed in the Constitution. You're rich, you can afford to fly to the best doctor in the country and get operated on. You're poor, you get inferior care, but still good care. I also eat better than somebody without a job, and we're both free to buy as we choose. The part you missed is that health care is a unique case. That's because you get emergency care whether or not you paid for it (Reagan's fault, by the way) and because your health impacts others due to the nature of infectious diseases. As soon as you're born, you're entitled to emergency health care, so you're already in the market. I guess it wouldn't be a problem if you opted out of that (think Christian Scientists), but they do have a waiver for it if you do. How can you possibly argue that it is unique because it affects others? Literally everything you do affects others. Everything. Driving a car affects the people on the road. The speed and manner you drive affects others. Your weight affects others. Your speech affects others. The number of children you choose to have, the place you choose to live, it all affects everyone around you. When you are born, you need food. Aren't people entitled to food just like emergency care? And so you are born into the food market, just like you are born into the health care market. The food you choose to eat affects others. If you eat food that makes you obese, it has a direct cost on the health care premiums that others have to pay. And so food is unique and they can make you purchase broccoli. There is no limiting factor in these arguments. There is nothing that uniquely distinguishes health care from everything else. Everything is interconnected. Every action affects another action. Every inaction has consequences. As soon as you are born, you require shelter. Your shelter has a direct influence on others because we all share the same space. And so you are born into the housing market, a market that's unique. As soon as you are born, you require waste management and sewer systems to take care of your waste. Without proper disposal, your waste will directly harm other people and can make people sick. You are born into the waste management and sewer market, a market that's unique. It is a completely meaningless argument for trying to get around the obvious fact that with this mandate the government is creating commerce and not regulating existing commerce at the individual level.
Let me outsource a counterargument to Reagan's solicitor general, here
There’s all this stuff that got in there about creating commerce in order to regulate it. ... But quite apart from that, what is the commerce? The commerce is not the health insurance market. The commerce is the health-care market, as [current solicitor general Donald] Verrilli said a million times. And it’s very hard to deny that.
: First of all, the limiting principle point kind of begs the question. It assumes there’s got to be some kind of articulatable limiting principle and that’s in the Constitution somewhere. What Chief Justice John Marshall said in 1824 is that if something is within the power of Congress, Congress may exercise that power to its fullest extent. So the question is really whether this is in the power of Congress.
Now, is it within the power of Congress? Well, the power of Congress is to regulate interstate commerce. Is health care commerce among the states? Nobody except maybe Clarence Thomas doubts that. So health care is interstate commerce. Is this a regulation of it? Yes. End of story.
Here’s another thing Marshall said. To regulate is “to make the rule for.” Does this make a rule for commerce? Yes!
There is a market for health care. It’s a coordinated market. A heavily regulated market. Is Congress creating the market in order to regulate it? It’s not creating it! The market is there! Is it forcing people into it in order to regulate them? In every five-year period, 95 percent of the population is in the health-care market. Now, it’s not 100 percent, but I’d say that’s close enough for government work. And in any one year, it’s close to 85 percent. Congress isn’t forcing people into that market to regulate them. The whole thing is just a canard that’s been invented by the tea party and Randy Barnetts of the world, and I was astonished to hear it coming out of the mouths of the people on that bench.
The mandate is just a tax penalty that regulates commerce. Call it a tax rebate for people who bought insurance; who cares? Congress has the power to tax, and there's a pretty clear limiting principle in healthcare (although it falls well under the Commerce Clause), where the consumer is captive and essentially forced into the market when a loved one / self gets sick.
As for whether health care mandates in particular are constitutional, the founding fathers sure thought so.
If marijuana grown in one's backyard for personal use can be regulated via the Commerce Clause (thanks, Justice Scalia!) and people can be sent to jail for it, it's hard to imagine that a net tax rebate for purchasers of insurance on interstate health care markets can't be.
|
|
|
Canada11382 Posts
On March 29 2012 11:58 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 06:36 Falling wrote:On March 29 2012 06:29 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: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. Yeah, halfway through I began how much easier it is to deadlock things than to govern in the US. If it was a parliamentary system, it would be much easier. What's the quote? The gears of government grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine? Sometimes not being able to get shit done can be a good thing.
Well there's due process and then there's deadlock- such as being able to endlessly filibuster in the Senate (as opposed to the limitations put on Congress filibusters.) I would argue a bicameral parliamentary system has the necessary checks and balances. But that's a different debate altogether.
|
United States1948 Posts
As for whether health care mandates in particular are constitutional, the founding fathers sure thought so.
I think you need to re-read that article... and the constitution. They imposed a tax in “An Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”. Also, the tax was limited to those who were maritime sailors. They did have the option to seek employment elsewhere and avoid the tax.
The individual mandate is not a tax. Authors of the bill have said the bill contains no new taxes. President Obama himself has said the bill contains no new taxes. Opponents of the mandate have said all along that Congress should have invoked their powers of taxation instead of assuming a gross overreach of power by compelling private citizens to do business with a private company by virtue of simply being alive.
It wasn't until recently that they started using the language "tax penalty" which is really quite a ridiculous effort to cover up the blatant disregard lawmakers had for the Constitution when they authored the bill.
“General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax..." - Justice Samuel Alito
Also, I found this interesting:
In 2009, President Obama was asked whether the individual mandate in his healthcare plan was really just a tax in disguise. "I absolutely reject that notion," he responded.
source: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-healthcare-tax-versus-mandate-20120329,0,1427494.column
Crazy to think that if they had just broken Obama's promise of "no new taxes on the middle class" then none of this would be going on right now.
|
I asked this question earlier and didn't get an answer. Would a public option fix the constitutionality of it?
|
On March 29 2012 21:59 DoubleReed wrote:
I asked this question earlier and didn't get an answer. Would a public option fix the constitutionality of it?
No, a public option would not affect the constitutionality of the law. All it would do is add another seller to the marketplace.
|
In case anyone missed this funny exchange involving Scalia:
Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?
Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
MR. KNEEDLER: Well -
Audio here: http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/
Scalia's opinions were always my favorites to read because they were so entertaining. He has a very sharp tongue and always used a lot of wit when picking apart the arguments of people with whom he disagreed.
|
On March 29 2012 22:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 21:59 DoubleReed wrote:
I asked this question earlier and didn't get an answer. Would a public option fix the constitutionality of it? No, a public option would not affect the constitutionality of the law. All it would do is add another seller to the marketplace.
Can't the government force people to buy government healthcare if they don't supply their own? Surely that's covered by keeping the union healthy and such, like social security and welfare.
|
On March 29 2012 23:03 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 22:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 29 2012 21:59 DoubleReed wrote:
I asked this question earlier and didn't get an answer. Would a public option fix the constitutionality of it? No, a public option would not affect the constitutionality of the law. All it would do is add another seller to the marketplace. Can't the government force people to buy government healthcare if they don't supply their own? Surely that's covered by keeping the union healthy and such, like social security and welfare.
The government can provide healthcare benefits as a welfare program. However, this is different than the current scheme of Obamacare. Remember, Obamacare is not structured like a typical welfare program such as Medicare where tax money is used to enact and fund a program. Instead, it compels individuals to purchase insurance themselves or pay a penalty. Adding a public option does not change this structure. It only adds another player to the marketplace, which is why it would not materially change the constitutionality of Obamacare.
|
On March 29 2012 23:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 23:03 DoubleReed wrote:On March 29 2012 22:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 29 2012 21:59 DoubleReed wrote:
I asked this question earlier and didn't get an answer. Would a public option fix the constitutionality of it? No, a public option would not affect the constitutionality of the law. All it would do is add another seller to the marketplace. Can't the government force people to buy government healthcare if they don't supply their own? Surely that's covered by keeping the union healthy and such, like social security and welfare. The government can provide healthcare benefits as a welfare program. However, this is different than the current scheme of Obamacare. Remember, Obamacare is not structured like a typical welfare program such as Medicare where tax money is used to enact and fund a program. Instead, it compels individuals to purchase insurance themselves or pay a penalty. Adding a public option does not change this structure. It only adds another player to the marketplace, which is why it would not materially change the constitutionality of Obamacare.
But with a public option it would be "you must buy private healthcare or the government will supply their own to you." There wouldn't be penalty, it would just be the cost of the public option. It would change the dynamics a bit.
|
On March 29 2012 23:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 23:06 xDaunt wrote:On March 29 2012 23:03 DoubleReed wrote:On March 29 2012 22:31 xDaunt wrote:On March 29 2012 21:59 DoubleReed wrote:
I asked this question earlier and didn't get an answer. Would a public option fix the constitutionality of it? No, a public option would not affect the constitutionality of the law. All it would do is add another seller to the marketplace. Can't the government force people to buy government healthcare if they don't supply their own? Surely that's covered by keeping the union healthy and such, like social security and welfare. The government can provide healthcare benefits as a welfare program. However, this is different than the current scheme of Obamacare. Remember, Obamacare is not structured like a typical welfare program such as Medicare where tax money is used to enact and fund a program. Instead, it compels individuals to purchase insurance themselves or pay a penalty. Adding a public option does not change this structure. It only adds another player to the marketplace, which is why it would not materially change the constitutionality of Obamacare. But with a public option it would be "you must buy private healthcare or the government will supply their own to you." There wouldn't be penalty, it would just be the cost of the public option. It would change the dynamics a bit.
I don't recall that being part of the discussion when Obamacare was being drafted. What you're describing there is basically what Medicare is, which is fundamentally different from Obamacare.
|
On March 29 2012 23:11 DoubleReed wrote:
But with a public option it would be "you must buy private healthcare or the government will supply their own to you." There wouldn't be penalty, it would just be the cost of the public option. It would change the dynamics a bit.
I don't believe that was the option that was put on the table. And if it was it doesn't relaly change much because you are still being compelled to purchase something. Saying "if you purchase health insurance, you must buy it from the government" is different from saying "you must buy health insurance, and you have the option to buy it from the government." In one, you have the option to enter commerce, in the other you don't. The first is clearly constititutional, the second is not clearly constitutional.
It's unlike car insurance because you don't have the option to not buy a car. Everyone has health, so therefore you are given no option to refrain from commerce. This makes it rather distinct from a legal perspective.
Also, if you were given free health insurance or the government just supplied it would essentially be universal health care in practice. Everyone would take the government coverage (why pay for something that you can get for free?) and then private insurance would merely expand on top of that coverage. Republicans would scream bloody murder if that ever happened, and for good reason: Medicare is bankrupting us right now.
|
On March 29 2012 23:33 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 23:11 DoubleReed wrote:
But with a public option it would be "you must buy private healthcare or the government will supply their own to you." There wouldn't be penalty, it would just be the cost of the public option. It would change the dynamics a bit. Also, if you were given free health insurance or the government just supplied it would essentially be universal health care in practice. Everyone would take the government coverage (why pay for something that you can get for free?) and then private insurance would merely expand on top of that coverage. Republicans would scream bloody murder if that ever happened, and for good reason: Medicare is bankrupting us right now.
As far as I know, there are still many rich people and people who want superior coverage. I'm not too familiar with the bill but not all assurances are equal. The US has some fancy hospitals for millionaires and you can be sure that your government insurance won't cover that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
