This wouldn't be such a bad law if they would just let people choose (by majority vote would be fine, I think) what kind of diseases / illnesses / injuries they are willing to have their tax dollars cover and which ones they wouldn't. I am sure, for example, most people would agree to cover cancer. But I am not entirely sure I want my taxes to go towards paying for someone who botched a suicide attempt.

Still doesn't matter til it hits SCOTUS.

(new window)

The people who say that this is "unconstitutional" don't understand what the Constitution is, what it says or what it doesn't do.

this was a conservative panel, too.

ignatiusst: This wouldn't be such a bad law if they would just let people choose (by majority vote would be fine, I think) what kind of diseases / illnesses / injuries they are willing to have their tax dollars cover and which ones they wouldn't. I am sure, for example, most people would agree to cover cancer. But I am not entirely sure I want my taxes to go towards paying for someone who botched a suicide attempt.

Just wait until the religious zealots vote to treat 'teh gheys' but not AIDS.

ignatiusst: This wouldn't be such a bad law if they would just let people choose (by majority vote would be fine, I think) what kind of diseases / illnesses / injuries they are willing to have their tax dollars cover and which ones they wouldn't. I am sure, for example, most people would agree to cover cancer. But I am not entirely sure I want my taxes to go towards paying for someone who botched a suicide attempt.

Quitter. Real Americans will their bodies to defeat the cancer as easily as they bootstrap themselves out of suicide-compelling depression.

ignatiusst: what kind of diseases / illnesses / injuries they are willing to have their tax dollars cover

Someone who falsely believes that "Obamacare" is a government takeover of the health care industry? That's unpossible!

Tuesday's 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a victory for the administration and its congressional supporters, but only adds to the divide among a range of federal courts over whether the law should be tossed out or severely trimmed in its scope. Three appeals court have upheld the law, while one has ruled it unconstitutional.

How does it "add to the divide" by strengthening the already pluralistic view?

ignatiusst: This wouldn't be such a bad law if they would just let people choose (by majority vote would be fine, I think) what kind of diseases / illnesses / injuries they are willing to have their tax dollars cover and which ones they wouldn't. I am sure, for example, most people would agree to cover cancer. But I am not entirely sure I want my taxes to go towards paying for someone who botched a suicide attempt.

Tyranny of the majority

ignatiusst: But I am not entirely sure I want my taxes to go towards paying for someone who botched a suicide attempt.

Its easy to say that when it's not your loved one, child, or parent. But everyone one of those is someone's loved one, child or parent. And if it was yours, I'm willing to bet you would feel differently, and feel differently about whether to compel someone else to pay for mental health care if it made the difference for your parent, betrothed or child. A Public Ethics and the Common Good require that we need to be willing to treat others the way we would want them to treat not only ourselves, but our parents, loved ones and children.

vossiewulf: Tyranny of the majority

Tragedy of the Commons

KyngNothing: How does it "add to the divide" by strengthening the already pluralistic view?

Remember, responsible journalism requires reporters to state that if even one portion of the law is judged unconstitutional---even if all other aspects are upheld---Barack Obama must immediately be sacrificed to Tiamat and Sarah Palin automatically becomes President of the United States.

Anyone have any ideas on when this may hit the SCOTUS?

Quasar: Still doesn't matter til it hits SCOTUS.

this

FTA: "The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins," wrote Judge Laurence Silberman.

I like being an American. I'm free to do what ever I want as long as it's not illegal. Just because I don't like a law, for example, Utah's crazy alcohol regulations, doesn't make it unconstitutional.

WTFDYW: Anyone have any ideas on when this may hit the SCOTUS?

Not for another year or so, I believe. I wonder if they'd put it off until after the election so as not to circusize it.

Because People in power are Stupid: The people who say that this is "unconstitutional" don't understand what the Constitution is, what it says or what it doesn't do.

The people who say that there is absolutely no doubt as to the constitutionality of this law don't understand how the lack of a legal precedent wherein the federal government mandates the purchase of a service from a private organization makes a USSC ruling on the law almost a necessity.

Quasar: WTFDYW: Anyone have any ideas on when this may hit the SCOTUS?

Not for another year or so, I believe. I wonder if they'd put it off until after the election so as not to circusize it.

I think that Obama wanted to have it reviewed before the election (new window)

Babwa Wawa: Because People in power are Stupid: The people who say that this is "unconstitutional" don't understand what the Constitution is, what it says or what it doesn't do.

The people who say that there is absolutely no doubt as to the constitutionality of this law don't understand how the lack of a legal precedent wherein the federal government mandates the purchase of a service from a private organization makes a USSC ruling on the law almost a necessity.

Yet the Constitution is very clear about what doesn't go into to law...
Example: "Congress shall make no law..."

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that should be no precedents set. (new window)

Because People in power are Stupid: Yet the Constitution is very clear about what doesn't go into to law...
Example: "Congress shall make no law..."

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that should be no precedents set. (new window)

You. -> My point ->.

Of course precedents can be set, and of course it is currently the law - it is constitutional until it is found unconstitutional.

However, this is a pretty sweeping interpretation of the commerce clause, and if you think it's a slam dunk for the Obama administration, you're not paying attention.

I agree, hitchking, but we're trying to fix it. Sucks that employers will hire people without providing health insurance because they're cost less, then lay off other employees because they have health insurance.

Babwa Wawa: Because People in power are Stupid: Yet the Constitution is very clear about what doesn't go into to law...
Example: "Congress shall make no law..."

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that should be no precedents set. (new window)

You. -> My point ->.

Of course precedents can be set, and of course it is currently the law - it is constitutional until it is found unconstitutional.

However, this is a pretty sweeping interpretation of the commerce clause, and if you think it's a slam dunk for the Obama administration, you're not paying attention.

It's not a slam dunk because this isn't basketball.

And the "Necessary and Proper Clause" gives congress the ability to enact laws. If you know of an amendment that specifically disallows Congress from enacting health care legislation that prevents insurance companies from dropping clients -do tell.

Because Soc1al1sm! Derp!

hitchking: Babwa Wawa: Because People in power are Stupid: The people who say that this is "unconstitutional" don't understand what the Constitution is, what it says or what it doesn't do.

The people who say that there is absolutely no doubt as to the constitutionality of this law don't understand how the lack of a legal precedent wherein the federal government mandates the purchase of a service from a private organization makes a USSC ruling on the law almost a necessity.

I keep hearing this argument. Why is it potentially unconstitutional for the government to impose a financial penalty if a person doesn't buy health insurance? A lot of people make this distinction, but I don't get why it's different from other legislation (in some legally relevant way).

I'm genuinely asking, though I suppose I could do some googling...

EnviroDude: Quasar: Still doesn't matter til it hits SCOTUS.

this

At this point, isn't that a lot like saying you hope SCOTUS will legislate from the bench in your favor?

hitchking: I keep hearing this argument. Why is it potentially unconstitutional for the government to impose a financial penalty if a person doesn't buy health insurance? A lot of people make this distinction, but I don't get why it's different from other legislation (in some legally relevant way).

Well, right now, Congress doesn't mandate that you have to buy any product. It can mandate that you have to participate in insurance programs such as social security and medicare, but that's federally run - not a private product. States can mandate things like car insurance, and even Massachusetts has mandated that you have to buy health insurance. But that's a state. Not Congress.

So this is completely untested. The Obama administration maintains that Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

The question most commonly asked is that if the CC can be thus interpreted, is there any limit to what the gov't can mandate?

Ironically enough, a single payer system like yours would be completely constitutional. It goes from being a mandate to buy a private product to a tax and participation in a mandatory insurance scheme. This has been tested before.

The USSC could strike down the mandatory participation portion of the law, leaving the universal coverage portions in place. It could strike the whole law down. I could see them forcing a federally-administered option, so that there is no mandate. I could also see them saying the whole thing's just fine.

But anyone who says there's no doubt about it is arguing from emotion, and not facts. This needs to be tested.

Babwa Wawa: The people who say that there is absolutely no doubt as to the constitutionality of this law don't understand how the lack of a legal precedent wherein the federal government mandates the purchase of a service from a private organization makes a USSC ruling on the law almost a necessity.

... which only happened because Republicans blocked the original public option proposal.

ignatiusst: EnviroDude: Quasar: Still doesn't matter til it hits SCOTUS.

this

At this point, isn't that a lot like saying you hope SCOTUS will legislate from the bench in your favor?

I'm not sure how, considering SCOTUS is a conservative court, but that's the place where it will make the final call.

weave: ... which only happened because Republicans blocked the original public option proposal.

Which would be ironic, wouldn't it?

There would still be a question with the public option. The only scenario without question was the single payer system, which was a political non-starter, for some damned reason or another.

Babwa Wawa: hitchking: I keep hearing this argument. Why is it potentially unconstitutional for the government to impose a financial penalty if a person doesn't buy health insurance? A lot of people make this distinction, but I don't get why it's different from other legislation (in some legally relevant way).

Well, right now, Congress doesn't mandate that you have to buy any product. "

False. Vagrancy laws (though often found to be unconstitutional) mandate that people must have some place to live -in other words either have or buy shelter.

Oh sure, it's states rights yadayada -but there are simple guidelines and things that must be done. If I don't want to purchase clothing or indeed wear clothes -would congress make me? Could I walk around Washington DC (note: not a state) wearing nothing?

It's a simple fact that if you don't have health insurance then you are going to be a burden on the public tax system. The public (ie the government) shouldn't have to pay for it so buy insurance. Also wear clothes because, we don't want to see your schlong.



Babwa Wawa: It can mandate that you have to participate in insurance programs such as social security and medicare, but that's federally run - not a private product. States can mandate things like car insurance, and even Massachusetts has mandated that you have to buy health insurance. But that's a state. Not Congress.

So this is completely untested. The Obama administration maintains that Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

Again you completely ignore the Sweeping Clause. -Derpy derpy derpity do...

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer there of.

Babwa Wawa:
The question most commonly asked is that if the CC can be thus interpreted, is there any limit to what the gov't can mandate?


Guess what, it's in the Constitution... Can't restrict religion, free speech or the press (1st amendment); the right to own firearms (2nd amendment)...

The Constitution is VERY CLEAR about what is NOT to be done.

Should I go on?

IBabwa Wawa:
But anyone who says there's no doubt about it is arguing from emotion, and not facts. This needs to be tested.


Derpy, your are speaking about something which you don't understand very well. Not from facts or emotion but from raw stupidity.

EnviroDude: Quasar: WTFDYW: Anyone have any ideas on when this may hit the SCOTUS?

Not for another year or so, I believe. I wonder if they'd put it off until after the election so as not to circusize it.

I think that Obama wanted to have it reviewed before the election (new window)

I remember something about that too.

Because People in power are Stupid: False. Vagrancy laws (though often found to be unconstitutional) mandate that people must have some place to live -in other words either have or buy shelter.

You'd have a point if there were any federal vagrancy laws.

Because People in power are Stupid: Guess what, it's in the Constitution... Can't restrict religion, free speech or the press (1st amendment); the right to own firearms (2nd amendment)...

The Constitution is VERY CLEAR about what is NOT to be done.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Therein lies the rub. So OA is saying that in obamacare, congress is exercising its power under the commerce clause. That is debatable.

Because People in power are Stupid: Derpy, your are speaking about something which you don't understand very well. Not from facts or emotion but from raw stupidity.

Derpy, if you don't think that there are very smart people on both sides of this issue, you're ignoring reality.

I'm not saying it is or isn't going to be found utlimately constitutional. However, there is good reason for the debate.

Do you really expect that there won't be a SCOTUS ruling, and if there is, it will be unanimous? Do you think it's that farking obvious? Because constitutional scholars on both sides of the issue would disagree with you.

Babwa Wawa: Because People in power are Stupid: False. Vagrancy laws (though often found to be unconstitutional) mandate that people must have some place to live -in other words either have or buy shelter.

You'd have a point if there were any federal vagrancy laws.


Except that public decency laws were upheld. (Still gotta buy clothes and not piss in the streets). Do you want me to google the case law?


Babwa Wawa:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Therein lies the rub. So OA is saying that in obamacare, congress is exercising its power under the commerce clause. That is debatable.

Citation needed. Find one "Freeper Free" reference to where the Obama Administration makes the claim that the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is allowed exclusively under the commerce clause.

That claim is pure hogwash.

Congress has the right to make laws. End of story.

Babwa Wawa:
Because People in power are Stupid: Derpy, your are speaking about something which you don't understand very well. Not from facts or emotion but from raw stupidity.

Derpy, if you don't think that there are very smart people on both sides of this issue, you're ignoring reality.

I'm not saying it is or isn't going to be found utlimately constitutional. However, there is good reason for the debate.

Do you really expect that there won't be a SCOTUS ruling, and if there is, it will be unanimous? Do you think it's that farking obvious? Because constitutional scholars on both sides of the issue would disagree with you.

I'm sure there are people on the other side of the issue who know what they are talking about. You are not one of them.

As pointed out Obama himself wanted to take this to the SCOTUS. Probably to remove your repugnantan tainted parts of the bill (as if).

weave: Babwa Wawa: The people who say that there is absolutely no doubt as to the constitutionality of this law don't understand how the lack of a legal precedent wherein the federal government mandates the purchase of a service from a private organization makes a USSC ruling on the law almost a necessity.

... which only happened because Republicans blocked the original public option proposal.

Well that and Obama had already secretly traded it away in negotiations with the pharma lobby as detailed by Bob Woodward.

See if you can figure out which one of these nations hasn't figured out that primary HCI is a public good, by economic definition:





/yes... all nations are experiencing an increase as a % of gdp or per capita
//yet, somehow, one nation is increasing at a significantly greater rate

Because People in power are Stupid: Except that public decency laws were upheld. (Still gotta buy clothes and not piss in the streets). Do you want me to google the case law?

Again, is there a federal decency law I'm not aware of? How the fark can you claim such legal academic ascendency and still not recognize the difference between state and federal law?

Because People in power are Stupid: Congress has the right power to make enact laws in support of those powers outlined in Article 1, Section 8, Article 4, Section 3, and Amendment 16 to the Constitution. Any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government or prohibited to the states are devolved to the states or the people as stated in the 10th amendment. Therefore, any power asserted by Congress must be covered in the US Constitution. As there is no precedent for the federal government mandating the purchase of a private product, there is debate about its legality under the constitution. Therefore a ruling by USSC will likely follow. End of story.

Fixed. And for the record, rights are for people. Powers are for government.

Because People in power are Stupid: As pointed out Obama himself wanted to take this to the SCOTUS. Probably to remove your repugnantan tainted parts of the bill (as if).

As if you farking know my politics. I think Obamacare is an inadequate reform. Ideally I'd like to see a single payer system. I felt betrayed by the lack of a public option in the final version of the law. But it's a start.

Anyway, shut your whore mouth. You don't farking know me, jackass.

Because People in power are Stupid: I'm sure there are people on the other side of the issue who know what they are talking about. You are not one of the

Clearly neither are you.

When will this get to the Supreme Court?

All this foreplay is amounting to masturbation fodder.

Dictatorial_Flair: Hey, look, the commerce clause popped up again. Is there anything it can't justify?

A capitation as a penalty for noncompliance. Congress can make the law saying you have to buy insurance. What it can't do is say buy insurance or pay a $2500 penalty. If the penalty is a progressive income tax, it's fine. If health benefits provided by someone else in excess of $2500 are taxed as regular income above $2500, it's fine. But that's not what the bill does. And that's where there's conflicting Circuit Court rulings.