|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On June 25 2012 01:04 diplomatten wrote:
In response to the above, it would be incredible irresponsible for the court to make a decision without having read the entire law. That's their job. I have complete faith that what they keep and strike down will be well thought out.
I'm sure that they'll read the whole thing (unlike Congress).
|
On June 25 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 01:04 diplomatten wrote:
In response to the above, it would be incredible irresponsible for the court to make a decision without having read the entire law. That's their job. I have complete faith that what they keep and strike down will be well thought out. I'm sure that they'll read the whole thing (unlike Congress).
Is that sarcasm or not? I can't tell.
|
On June 25 2012 01:13 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2012 01:04 diplomatten wrote:
In response to the above, it would be incredible irresponsible for the court to make a decision without having read the entire law. That's their job. I have complete faith that what they keep and strike down will be well thought out. I'm sure that they'll read the whole thing (unlike Congress). Is that sarcasm or not? I can't tell.
Unfortunately, it is not.
|
On June 25 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 01:04 diplomatten wrote:
In response to the above, it would be incredible irresponsible for the court to make a decision without having read the entire law. That's their job. I have complete faith that what they keep and strike down will be well thought out. I'm sure that they'll read the whole thing (unlike Congress).
Hard to say, the nebulous nature of the current supreme court dynamic makes it difficult to tell exactly what brand of due diligence is being applied at any given time. Here's an interesting bit of hyperbolia on Clarence Thomas, the justice everyone knows as the guy who yells at people for asking questions.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/justice-clarence-thomas-should-resign
|
On June 25 2012 01:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2012 01:04 diplomatten wrote:
In response to the above, it would be incredible irresponsible for the court to make a decision without having read the entire law. That's their job. I have complete faith that what they keep and strike down will be well thought out. I'm sure that they'll read the whole thing (unlike Congress). Hard to say, the nebulous nature of the current supreme court dynamic makes it difficult to tell exactly what brand of due diligence is being applied at any given time. Here's an interesting bit of hyperbolia on Clarence Thomas, the justice everyone knows as the guy who yells at people for asking questions. http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/justice-clarence-thomas-should-resign
The lack of detail and context tells you all you that you need to know about the quality of the article and the severity of what Thomas did (if anything).
|
|
|
Yep, forgot about that congressional oversight. One more reason why the whole law is gonna get scrapped.
|
You ought to read your own wikipedia link, Mr. 1st post, because if you think the presence of a severability clause or lack thereof ends the debate on how the court will rule on Obamacare you got another thing coming.
"However, this legislation does not include a Severability Clause, therefore if any part of this bill is deemed to be unconstitutional, the whole piece of legislation may be deemed to be unconstitutional."
|
Interesting question I just saw:
If a mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional, shouldn't a mandate to sell insurance (ie, a law forbidding insurers from declining coverage to applicants with preexisting conditions) also be unconstitutional? I don't think preex falls under anti-discrimination, since health status isn't a legally or constitutionally protected class.
|
On June 26 2012 23:48 Signet wrote:
Interesting question I just saw:
If a mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional, shouldn't a mandate to sell insurance (ie, a law forbidding insurers from declining coverage to applicants with preexisting conditions) also be unconstitutional? I don't think preex falls under anti-discrimination, since health status isn't a legally or constitutionally protected class.
How does that follow?
|
On June 25 2012 01:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 01:22 farvacola wrote:On June 25 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2012 01:04 diplomatten wrote:
In response to the above, it would be incredible irresponsible for the court to make a decision without having read the entire law. That's their job. I have complete faith that what they keep and strike down will be well thought out. I'm sure that they'll read the whole thing (unlike Congress). Hard to say, the nebulous nature of the current supreme court dynamic makes it difficult to tell exactly what brand of due diligence is being applied at any given time. Here's an interesting bit of hyperbolia on Clarence Thomas, the justice everyone knows as the guy who yells at people for asking questions. http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/justice-clarence-thomas-should-resign The lack of detail and context tells you all you that you need to know about the quality of the article and the severity of what Thomas did (if anything).
According to legal analysis, it is highly unlikely that the whole law is going to be scrapped. The mandate might be scrapped though.
Most of the argument against the individual mandate is based off the assumption that if the government can force you to buy healthcare then they can force you to buy broccoli. But the defense of the mandate comes from the commerce clause, that government can regulate interstate commerce. So if broccoli is interstate commerce, there is no reason why the government can't force you to buy it.
There has been many failed attempts to legally define where the government's regulatory powers end, as part of the commerce clause. But read the commerce clause, it's a one liner:
"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"
Nowhere does it state any limitation (other than it being interstate commerce). If it's interstate commerce (which healthcare is), then the government can regulate and that's that.
|
On June 27 2012 00:11 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2012 01:22 farvacola wrote:On June 25 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2012 01:04 diplomatten wrote:
In response to the above, it would be incredible irresponsible for the court to make a decision without having read the entire law. That's their job. I have complete faith that what they keep and strike down will be well thought out. I'm sure that they'll read the whole thing (unlike Congress). Hard to say, the nebulous nature of the current supreme court dynamic makes it difficult to tell exactly what brand of due diligence is being applied at any given time. Here's an interesting bit of hyperbolia on Clarence Thomas, the justice everyone knows as the guy who yells at people for asking questions. http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/justice-clarence-thomas-should-resign The lack of detail and context tells you all you that you need to know about the quality of the article and the severity of what Thomas did (if anything). According to legal analysis, it is highly unlikely that the whole law is going to be scrapped. The mandate might be scrapped though. Most of the argument against the individual mandate is based off the assumption that if the government can force you to buy healthcare then they can force you to buy broccoli. But the defense of the mandate comes from the commerce clause, that government can regulate interstate commerce. So if broccoli is interstate commerce, there is no reason why the government can't force you to buy it. There has been many failed attempts to legally define where the government's regulatory powers end, as part of the commerce clause. But read the commerce clause, it's a one liner: "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" Nowhere does it state any limitation (other than it being interstate commerce). If it's interstate commerce (which healthcare is), then the government can regulate and that's that.
"Legal analysis" has been fairly wrong on this case since the get-go. "Legal analysis" did not predict that there was even an issue of constitutionality. "Legal analysis" somehow missed or forgot about the past 15-20 years of "new federalism" commerce clause jurisprudence. "Legal analysis" was shocked at how hostile the Court was to the government's position during oral arguments (not that this matters so much because oral argument often is misleading). In short, "legal analysis" has been pretty bad on this case.
With regards to your commentary on the commerce clause, it is overly-simplistic and fails to account for any of the jurisprudence that has fleshed out what the limits of the commerce clause are.
|
On June 27 2012 00:05 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 23:48 Signet wrote:
Interesting question I just saw:
If a mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional, shouldn't a mandate to sell insurance (ie, a law forbidding insurers from declining coverage to applicants with preexisting conditions) also be unconstitutional? I don't think preex falls under anti-discrimination, since health status isn't a legally or constitutionally protected class. How does that follow?
Broadly, buying and selling are two sides of a transaction. If potential buyers can't be forced to buy something, why can potential sellers be forced to sell it?
I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but from a logical position it makes sense.
Probably 99% (if not 100%) of health care actuaries believe that if insurance companies are forced to provide insurance to everyone who applies for it with restrictions on how much they are allowed to charge someone for having preex, then there must be an individual mandate to buy insurance. Otherwise the insurance industry will collapse.
|
On June 27 2012 00:39 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2012 00:05 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 26 2012 23:48 Signet wrote:
Interesting question I just saw:
If a mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional, shouldn't a mandate to sell insurance (ie, a law forbidding insurers from declining coverage to applicants with preexisting conditions) also be unconstitutional? I don't think preex falls under anti-discrimination, since health status isn't a legally or constitutionally protected class. How does that follow? Broadly, buying and selling are two sides of a transaction. If potential buyers can't be forced to buy something, why can potential sellers be forced to sell it? I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but from a logical position it makes sense.
The Supreme Court has already addressed this situation in the context of civil rights cases dealing with the commerce clause in which the Court effective forced businesses to sell to blacks.
In terms of logically differentiating buying and selling insurance, here's where the line would be drawn: the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it forces people into a market in which they otherwise may choose not to engage in. Forcing insurance companies to sell insurance to people with preexisting conditions is constitutional because the insurance companies are already in the market of selling insurance to people.
|
|
|
The mandate is the funding mechanism that drives the entire thing.
If "just" the mandate gets scrapped... then are no healthy 20-30 year olds buying insurance to make the bill possible.
Anyway.... 46 hours to go, and we'll see.
|
On June 27 2012 00:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2012 00:39 Signet wrote:On June 27 2012 00:05 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 26 2012 23:48 Signet wrote:
Interesting question I just saw:
If a mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional, shouldn't a mandate to sell insurance (ie, a law forbidding insurers from declining coverage to applicants with preexisting conditions) also be unconstitutional? I don't think preex falls under anti-discrimination, since health status isn't a legally or constitutionally protected class. How does that follow? Broadly, buying and selling are two sides of a transaction. If potential buyers can't be forced to buy something, why can potential sellers be forced to sell it? I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but from a logical position it makes sense. The Supreme Court has already addressed this situation in the context of civil rights cases dealing with the commerce clause in which the Court effective forced businesses to sell to blacks. In terms of logically differentiating buying and selling insurance, here's where the line would be drawn: the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it forces people into a market in which they otherwise may choose not to engage in. Forcing insurance companies to sell insurance to people with preexisting conditions is constitutional because the insurance companies are already in the market of selling insurance to people.
They could be drawn there sure, but not with certainty. It could be argued that everyone engages in the activity of buying insurance, even if its provided via employer. The provision of insurance on the part of a employer does not preclude an involvement on the part of employee to whom the insurance is being provided, although it could be argued that way.
|
On June 27 2012 00:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2012 00:45 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2012 00:39 Signet wrote:On June 27 2012 00:05 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 26 2012 23:48 Signet wrote:
Interesting question I just saw:
If a mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional, shouldn't a mandate to sell insurance (ie, a law forbidding insurers from declining coverage to applicants with preexisting conditions) also be unconstitutional? I don't think preex falls under anti-discrimination, since health status isn't a legally or constitutionally protected class. How does that follow? Broadly, buying and selling are two sides of a transaction. If potential buyers can't be forced to buy something, why can potential sellers be forced to sell it? I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but from a logical position it makes sense. The Supreme Court has already addressed this situation in the context of civil rights cases dealing with the commerce clause in which the Court effective forced businesses to sell to blacks. In terms of logically differentiating buying and selling insurance, here's where the line would be drawn: the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it forces people into a market in which they otherwise may choose not to engage in. Forcing insurance companies to sell insurance to people with preexisting conditions is constitutional because the insurance companies are already in the market of selling insurance to people. They could be drawn there sure, but not with certainty. It could be argued that everyone engages in the activity of buying insurance, even if its provided via employer. The provision of insurance on the part of a employer does not preclude an involvement on the part of employee to whom the insurance is being provided, although it could be argued that way.
I'm just telling you that is where the Court is going to draw the line. Also, you can't think about the issue in terms of just insurance (as an aside, a majority of Americans do not have employer-provided health insurance). The Court certainly isn't thinking about the question strictly through that prism. This is a novel question with broad application to many possible markets, which is something that the Court is going to be carefully considering.
|
On June 27 2012 00:11 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2012 01:22 farvacola wrote:On June 25 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2012 01:04 diplomatten wrote:
In response to the above, it would be incredible irresponsible for the court to make a decision without having read the entire law. That's their job. I have complete faith that what they keep and strike down will be well thought out. I'm sure that they'll read the whole thing (unlike Congress). Hard to say, the nebulous nature of the current supreme court dynamic makes it difficult to tell exactly what brand of due diligence is being applied at any given time. Here's an interesting bit of hyperbolia on Clarence Thomas, the justice everyone knows as the guy who yells at people for asking questions. http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/justice-clarence-thomas-should-resign The lack of detail and context tells you all you that you need to know about the quality of the article and the severity of what Thomas did (if anything). According to legal analysis, it is highly unlikely that the whole law is going to be scrapped. The mandate might be scrapped though. Most of the argument against the individual mandate is based off the assumption that if the government can force you to buy healthcare then they can force you to buy broccoli. But the defense of the mandate comes from the commerce clause, that government can regulate interstate commerce. So if broccoli is interstate commerce, there is no reason why the government can't force you to buy it. There has been many failed attempts to legally define where the government's regulatory powers end, as part of the commerce clause. But read the commerce clause, it's a one liner: "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" Nowhere does it state any limitation (other than it being interstate commerce). If it's interstate commerce (which healthcare is), then the government can regulate and that's that.
Funny thing about that, healthcare may be interstate commerce, but health insurance is not.
|
On June 27 2012 02:17 iGrok wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2012 00:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 25 2012 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2012 01:22 farvacola wrote:On June 25 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2012 01:04 diplomatten wrote:
In response to the above, it would be incredible irresponsible for the court to make a decision without having read the entire law. That's their job. I have complete faith that what they keep and strike down will be well thought out. I'm sure that they'll read the whole thing (unlike Congress). Hard to say, the nebulous nature of the current supreme court dynamic makes it difficult to tell exactly what brand of due diligence is being applied at any given time. Here's an interesting bit of hyperbolia on Clarence Thomas, the justice everyone knows as the guy who yells at people for asking questions. http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/justice-clarence-thomas-should-resign The lack of detail and context tells you all you that you need to know about the quality of the article and the severity of what Thomas did (if anything). According to legal analysis, it is highly unlikely that the whole law is going to be scrapped. The mandate might be scrapped though. Most of the argument against the individual mandate is based off the assumption that if the government can force you to buy healthcare then they can force you to buy broccoli. But the defense of the mandate comes from the commerce clause, that government can regulate interstate commerce. So if broccoli is interstate commerce, there is no reason why the government can't force you to buy it. There has been many failed attempts to legally define where the government's regulatory powers end, as part of the commerce clause. But read the commerce clause, it's a one liner: "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" Nowhere does it state any limitation (other than it being interstate commerce). If it's interstate commerce (which healthcare is), then the government can regulate and that's that. Funny thing about that, healthcare may be interstate commerce, but health insurance is not.
Not exactly. While you can only purchase a health insurance plan sold within your state, that plan will still cover treatments/etc performed in other states. (depending on the plan, this might be reimbursed at out-of-network rates)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
