Supremes will strike down Obamacare?

[kramerfan86]

Has not the precedent been set that private corp. can become federal if they fail, until they can get back on their feet?

If we thought buying houses, or cars can become problematic, why would healthcare be any different?

The government doesnt force you to purchase anything from GM though, Im not quite sure how that argument comes into play here. They also dont force you to buy a house using their lenders for your own good.

The ONLY example we really have of government forcing a purchase of something from private industry is auto liability insurance, and once again you can choose not to have a car, you cant choose not to have a body that needs health insurance according to the government. This mandate is only in there to bribe off the insurance companies by offering them piles of young customers who likely dont need much health care giving them a profit base to make up for having to take on preconditions.

 

[JollyRoger]

The ONLY example we really have of government forcing a purchase of something from private industry is auto liability insurance

If you ignore the militia act of 1792. It forced citizens into a market and forced those citizens to acquire several items from the private market.

 

[illram]

This issue is getting too abstracted. "The Government can/cannot force you to do something" is not a helpful question in my opinion. The Government can force you to do a lot of things, and the Government can prevent you from doing a lot of things. The question is: what's the public policy reason and is it related enough to what the government is trying to do. Health care is not broccoli, health care is not burial insurance, health care is not auto insurance. It is kind of sad to hear some Justices throwing out those sort of slippery slope arguments.

 

[timtofly]

The government doesnt force you to purchase anything from GM though, Im not quite sure how that argument comes into play here. They also dont force you to buy a house using their lenders for your own good.

The ONLY example we really have of government forcing a purchase of something from private industry is auto liability insurance, and once again you can choose not to have a car, you cant choose not to have a body that needs health insurance according to the government. This mandate is only in there to bribe off the insurance companies by offering them piles of young customers who likely dont need much health care giving them a profit base to make up for having to take on preconditions.

The point I was trying to make is that there is really no "private" corporations per se. The governement can step in and commandeer it if it is deemed not safe for the public. Is not this bill the government stepping in and telling every one how healthcare insurance is handled?

 

[Orka]

I feel that the mandate should be a political question, not a legal question. Legally speaking, I think it is perfectly constitutional, in part because the health care industry is unique. The mandate merely changes how people pay for health care, which everyone is practically certain to use. Right now, people can pay for health care either out-of-pocket or through insurance. All the mandate says is that you will no longer be allowed the out-of-pocket option (unless you pay a fine/tax), since that can lead to (usually unexpected) bankruptcies that have proven to be enormously costly to the entire industry and hurt everyone else. And note also there are exemptions for the mandate (it won't apply if a minimum coverage "bronze" insurance plan costs more than 8% of your income), which ensures the mandate won't be excessively harmful.

Now, whether the mandate is good policy can be debated, but that is not for unelected judges to to decide. The Supreme Court should try some judicial restraint and defer to Congress and the people here.

 

[kochman]

This issue is getting too abstracted. "The Government can/cannot force you to do something" is not a helpful question in my opinion. The Government can force you to do a lot of things, and the Government can prevent you from doing a lot of things. The question is: what's the public policy reason and is it related enough to what the government is trying to do. Health care is not broccoli, health care is not burial insurance, health care is not auto insurance. It is kind of sad to hear some Justices throwing out those sort of slippery slope arguments.

Yes, the gubbamint can force you to do a lot of things... however, the Constitution makes some specific delineations about what it can and cannot do.
So, it is not only a valid question... it is basically the entire question before the SOCUS right now.

 

[illram]

Yes, the gubbamint can force you to do a lot of things... however, the Constitution makes some specific delineations about what it can and cannot do.
So, it is not only a valid question... it is basically the entire question before the SOCUS right now.

No it is not. "Can the government make you do something" is an intentional abstraction by those who want to oversimplify the issue. See, e.g. brocolli. The Government can prevent intrastate farmers from growing or cultivating their own private crop. The Government can force a restaurant owner to not discriminate against black people. The Government can make you pay your employee a certain wage.

The question is not "can the government make you do something." That answer is clearly "yes" and thus the question is not very helpful. This question is: where is the line drawn? Can the government regulate health insurance--a clearly national economic market--by mandating that everyone affirmatively participates in that market? Can the Government make insurance companies offer certain plans, for certain prices? Etc. etc. The SCOTUS draws lines on government power all the time. That's what they do. They're very good at it. Dumbing this question down is more of the same "5 second soundbite" infotainment that just makes us all dumber and clouds the issue--often intentionally and in favor of whoever is making that simplification.

This case is important, it is unique, but this is not the first time the Court has struggled with an important question on the limits of government authority.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The government had the de facto power to threaten violence against those who grow their own crops and the supreme court once ruled that it has the authority to do so, but the idea that the Constitution actually grants it that authority is patently absurd.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I'd rather they didn't, but the argument that it's unconstitutional actually makes more sense than the opposite.

Ironically, the much more radical single payer would pass muster just fine. It was a bad compromise and a Frankenstein's monster of a law. Hopefully they will strike down the entire law so we can push for real socialized medicine.

I'm actually thinking I should have voted "hope so," because the law is ultimately somewhat flawed at the core.

Nearly 100% likely, and if I had more cash on hand I'd be pumping it into Intrade.

 

[kochman]

No it is not. "Can the government make you do something" is an intentional abstraction by those who want to oversimplify the issue. See, e.g. brocolli. The Government can prevent intrastate farmers from growing or cultivating their own private crop. The Government can force a restaurant owner to not discriminate against black people. The Government can make you pay your employee a certain wage.

The question is not "can the government make you do something." That answer is clearly "yes" and thus the question is not very helpful. This question is: where is the line drawn? Can the government regulate health insurance--a clearly national economic market--by mandating that everyone affirmatively participates in that market? Can the Government make insurance companies offer certain plans, for certain prices? Etc. etc. The SCOTUS draws lines on government power all the time. That's what they do. They're very good at it. Dumbing this question down is more of the same "5 second soundbite" infotainment that just makes us all dumber and clouds the issue--often intentionally and in favor of whoever is making that simplification.

This case is important, it is unique, but this is not the first time the Court has struggled with an important question on the limits of government authority.

Uh, this post is odd...
The truth is, the SOCUS is reviewing if it is Constitutional for the gubbamint to make you purchase a private product/service... and it isn't dumbing it down to admit this... this is the gist of it... hence the questions from the bench about broccoli or whatever...

They are deciding if this is within the powers of the gubbamint, which is essentially the same as what I am saying, yes... but for some reason you are trying to draw some distinction that isn't there...

 

[illram]

My god, please stop saying gubbamint. "Can the government force you to do something" is different than "can the government mandate the purchase of health insurance or charge a penalty in lieu of that purchase." That's the distinction I am making. Some people want to ask the first question and not the second.

 

[kochman]

But I enjoy saying "gubbamint"

 

[JollyRoger]

The gubbamint forced the people bringing the lawsuit against Obamacare to produce a lawyer at the Supreme Court for specific time periods on three consecutive days or lose the case, thus forcing the plaintiffs to buy healthcare. And these gubbamint officials were unelected goons in robes with lifetime appointments and thus no real accountability to We the People. Where does the tyranny end?

 

[timtofly]

Kochman, I think we need to admit that the government is looking out for our own good, even if it "kills" us to do so. By it, I am not referring to the government, I am referring to the inability to do it. It is not the governments fault that we are in a mess. The government is just a tool. It is really the people running the government, who (I guess) think that what we need is different than what we think that we need.

I am not sure, but for some reason this did make it to the SC. Normally it is not the party that is pushing it that brings it to the SC, but the opposing party. If there was any doubt that this bill needed review, would it make sense to even bring it.

On the other hand there are some who think that people are not getting the right healthcare. Is it because people refuse to see a docotor? Is it because doctors refuse to see people? Is it because doctors want more money for seeing people? Is it because people do not have the money? Is it because insurance is not paying out enough? Is it because only those who pay insurance receive the benefit thereof? Does insuarance even cover those who do not pay? Are doctors demanding more, because there are more people not paying?

Now compare all those questions to the "red tape" it would create to unravel that mess. Now consider the excuse that if money stopped moving through the economy everything would collapse. Now consider that people do not want all these facts/opinions, they just want the bottom line. People just want a solution and do not care the means to get there.

 

[kochman]

Kochman, I think we need to admit that the government is looking out for our own good, even if it "kills" us to do so. By it, I am not referring to the government, I am referring to the inability to do it. It is not the governments fault that we are in a mess. The government is just a tool. It is really the people running the government, who (I guess) think that what we need is different than what we think that we need.

I am not sure, but for some reason this did make it to the SC. Normally it is not the party that is pushing it that brings it to the SC, but the opposing party. If there was any doubt that this bill needed review, would it make sense to even bring it.

On the other hand there are some who think that people are not getting the right healthcare. Is it because people refuse to see a docotor? Is it because doctors refuse to see people? Is it because doctors want more money for seeing people? Is it because people do not have the money? Is it because insurance is not paying out enough? Is it because only those who pay insurance receive the benefit thereof? Does insuarance even cover those who do not pay? Are doctors demanding more, because there are more people not paying?

Now compare all those questions to the "red tape" it would create to unravel that mess. Now consider the excuse that if money stopped moving through the economy everything would collapse. Now consider that people do not want all these facts/opinions, they just want the bottom line. People just want a solution and do not care the means to get there.

I agree... people want people to get HC... why would you not?
So, some people see the partial solution, and automatically think it is better... because it aims to help. Emotional response... if the help is poorly planned, it can do more harm than good...

 

[JollyRoger]

It is not those supporting this plan bringing up emotional appeals to broccoli.

 

[kochman]

It is not those supporting this plan bringing up emotional appeals to broccoli.

Yeah, there is definitely no emotional aspect to either side's case... hahahahahahaha

 

[AlpsStranger]

The broccoli thing is great. The only thing better would have been Granola.

I'm sure they aren't trying to conjure up glorious phantasms of a vegan liberal nannystate that wants to take our cheeseburgers away. Honest.

 

[History_Buff]

I agree... people want people to get HC... why would you not?
So, some people see the partial solution, and automatically think it is better... because it aims to help. Emotional response... if the help is poorly planned, it can do more harm than good...

Most of the people who supported Obamacare knew it was a poor solution. In a way nobody likes it; conservatives insist it violates their civil liberties somehow, progressives know it's incredibly flawed. But since Republicans were steadfastly refusing to accept UHC, what choice was there? I'll take a poor solution over no solution any day.

 

[kramerfan86]

Poor solution > no solution is shortsighted, bad solutions can in fact make situations worse. The option isnt simply better or what w e have now.