They cited statistics showing that healthcare accounts for 17 percent of the nation's economy and argued that the law was a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Constitution to regulate economic activity affecting interstate commerce.

Just out of idle curiosity (serious question, folks), is there any activity Americans can refuse to participate in that Congress can't claim authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause?

Friskya: Just out of idle curiosity (serious question, folks), is there any activity Americans can refuse to participate in that Congress can't claim authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause?

No, there's not. It's simply a matter of whether the regulation is acceptable to the people or not.

Certainly in this case, it's the right thing to do.

So if the SCOTUS rules that requiring mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional, will that negate mandatory car insurance requirements by the states?

hillbillypharmacist: Friskya: Just out of idle curiosity (serious question, folks), is there any activity Americans can refuse to participate in that Congress can't claim authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause?

No, there's not. It's simply a matter of whether the regulation is acceptable to the people or not.

Certainly in this case, it's the right thing to do.

Even as a Libertarian I would have highly preferred a universal health care system over this bullshiat Obama signed.

CruiserTwelve: So if the SCOTUS rules that requiring mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional, will that negate mandatory car insurance requirements by the states?

No, 9th and 10th amendment specifically gives states those kinds of rights

cman: Even as a Libertarian I would have highly preferred a universal health care system over this bullshiat Obama signed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama want something that resembled a universal health care system?

cman: CruiserTwelve: So if the SCOTUS rules that requiring mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional, will that negate mandatory car insurance requirements by the states?

No, 9th and 10th amendment specifically gives states those kinds of rights

Or not.

/FFS I need to quit doing drugs. Its farking with my thought process

cman: Even as a Libertarian I would have highly preferred a universal health care system over this bullshiat Obama signed.

Well sure. But politics is about what's possible, not about what's perfect.

Winning: cman: Even as a Libertarian I would have highly preferred a universal health care system over this bullshiat Obama signed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama want something that resembled a universal health care system?

He wanted a Single payer system. Sometimes these subtle differences make it so that no one has any idea the differences between them.

cman: He wanted a Single payer system. Sometimes these subtle differences make it so that no one has any idea the differences between them.

Technically speaking, we're going to have universal health care. Everyone is going to have some coverage, one way or the other. There'll just be multiple payers.

CruiserTwelve: So if the SCOTUS rules that requiring mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional, will that negate mandatory car insurance requirements by the states?

Probably not. You're only mandated to have car insurance if you take your vehicle out on the public roads. In most states, you don't even have to register your vehicle, so long as it never leaves your property.

In other words, it seems that once you enter into an agreement with other vehicle owners (the shared use of the public roadways), you have to agree to the terms of use that the state imposes. Insurance and registration for your vehicle among them. Up until that point, neither seems to be mandated.

Funnily enough, you're not actually required to know how to drive. And no, having a license to drive, doesn't mean you know how to drive.

CruiserTwelve: So if the SCOTUS rules that requiring mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional, will that negate mandatory car insurance requirements by the states?

If you do not understand the differences between the two, you should research it.

they are as far apart as night vs day

for example: People that elect not to own cars are not forced to purchase car insurance

EnviroDude: CruiserTwelve: So if the SCOTUS rules that requiring mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional, will that negate mandatory car insurance requirements by the states?

If you do not understand the differences between the two, you should research it.

they are as far apart as night vs day

for example: People that elect not to own cars are not forced to purchase car insurance

I love playing Devils Advocate.

You also could choose not to work. You wont have to live under those restrictions anymore.

Friskya: Funnily enough, you're not actually required to know how to drive.

That's the next step. You can't deny that it would be better for the economy if everyone were mandated to know how to drive, and own, a car.

The real question here is which model gets issued to those who can't afford one.

Maybe I'm remembering these things wrong, but wasn't the clause that everyone had to purchase insurance forced in by Republicans worried that if not, people would just buy insurance when they needed it and cancel it afterwards?

Bunnyhat: Maybe I'm remembering these things wrong, but wasn't the clause that everyone had to purchase insurance forced in by Republicans worried that if not, people would just buy insurance when they needed it and cancel it afterwards?

It was a Republican plan to begin with, anyway.

SoCalSurfer: In fact I can't think of one medical issue that other people get that would affect me.

When people go to the hospital, get treated, and can't pay their bill, what do you think happens to everyone else's bill?

It already affects you. It already costs you money.

DarnoKonrad: No, that's a states issue. But it could negate all sorts of other federal mandates. There are federal mandates that cars must be sold with seat belts. There are federal mandates that light bulbs must be efficient. The list of federal mandates is exhaustive.

I think the difference is that I am not required to purchase any of those as a function of citizenship. I don't have a choice whether or not my car will have seat belts, but I can chose not to own a car for example.

Oh look, it's the same old tired arguments.

SoCalSurfer: But I'm relatively young and very healthy. So I pay no healthcare costs. So no it doesn't affect me. I guess I can be like the boomers too!
/this trolling thing, am I doing it right?

You should have gone with:
SoCalSurfer: I'm young and don't have health issues, learn to read asshole

DarnoKonrad: That's not a difference at all. GM or Ford is forced to "purchase" seat belts for their cars if they're for sale -- if you want to word it like subby did.

Corporations are people too, my friend?

There's a world of difference between a corporate entity adhering to safety laws in order to voluntarily sell a product on the open market and individual citizens being required to have health insurance coverage as a function of citizenship.

It's an entirely different concept and you know it. Don't be teabagger obtuse, dude.

DarnoKonrad: Then please explicate how? "it's obvious to you" isn't a valid argument

It's because of the same reason I get to vote and GM doesn't. The only way your argument works is that if business entities have the same legal standing as a citizen. They do not. They are things.

DarnoKonrad: Right back at you. It's also worth pointing out you don't have a choice when it comes to social security either -- it's a federal mandate for insurance as well.

Sure I do. I can not work, and not have to pay into Social Security. The only way I can get out of the HCR mandate is by no longer being a citizen of the United States. But in any case, Social Security is a public service administered by the Federal government, not a "requirement" for me to purchase old age insurance from a private business entity.

DarnoKonrad: I'm not following this statement at all.

I am a citizen. GM is a business entity. The rules governing my behavior and their behavior are different, and have different standards. You were claiming (and correct me if I am mistaken) that there is no difference and a "mandate" requiring a citizen to do something and a business having to do something. Business law is different than civil law, I guess is what I'm trying to say.

DarnoKonrad: If you'd bother to read the farking thing, you'd see the mandate is an excise on income and amends the 1986 IRS code

I think our entire debate is being hung up on the semantics over the word "mandate"

DarnoKonrad: No, it's a requirement you "purchase" OASI from the government.

that's like saying I am required to "purchase" a road. Or "purchase" police or fire protection.

DarnoKonrad: It could just as well be amended to use private insurance instead -- which is precisely what RyanCare is trying to do with Medicare.

And that is why Ryancare is one of the most godawful ideas in the history of Medicare reform, and would end Medicare as we know it.

FTA:

"The broccoli hypothetical has "no relevance to the case at hand,"

Sounds like a great band name. Or maybe an episode of The Big Bang Theory.

TheOther: but it is a little picayune to get hysterical about doing something you do every day as a matter of existence.

That's why I'm not personally bothered all that much by the "mandate." I'm going to have insurance regardless. I just get prickly at being "required" to, you know?

I didn't think I was being hysterical. I was having an enjoyable debate over the matter with DK.

The really troubling thing is how the same corporation that can produce splendour such as Cheetos and Mountain Dew can also produce the excrement that is Diet Pepsi.

That's to show you that they get pissed, they have the capability to flood the market with crap.

DarnoKonrad: Well there isn't a difference. You're arguing that citizenship exempts you from the commerce clause in a way other private entities aren't. I don't think that's a valid argument.

Not really 'exempt' but that there are different standards when it comes to citizens v business. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point, then.

DarnoKonrad: nd frankly, short of single payer, the best we're going to get is ObamaCare IMHO. And it's more or less consistent with many federal mandates -- it's only novel it that it's the first welfare program that extensively uses the private sector

I agree with that. And it's not only welfare for citizens; it's welfare for the insurance companies, too.

Aarontology: That's why I'm not personally bothered all that much by the "mandate." I'm going to have insurance regardless. I just get prickly at being "required" to, you know?

You can de-prickle. That is, unless you are also pissed at the federal "mandate" that you marry or have to pay more in taxes by virtue of not receiving the marital deduction.

... or the "mandate" to have dependents, for that matter.

/you can see where I am going with this; could go on and on

DarnoKonrad: Now you know how the job creators feel

wherever they are...

DarnoKonrad: If you'd bother to read the farking thing, you'd see the mandate is an excise on income and amends the 1986 IRS code..

That's why this "force" argument is pretty bogus. If you'd rather pay a tax penalty, you can. The law mandates that people are covered--not that they purchase private policies.

Somacandra: DarnoKonrad: If you'd bother to read the farking thing, you'd see the mandate is an excise on income and amends the 1986 IRS code..

That's why this "force" argument is pretty bogus. If you'd rather pay a tax penalty, you can. The law mandates that people are covered--not that they purchase private policies.

Well now, that seems to be up to the SCOTUS to decide. And you know they will do the right thing.

Haahahahaahaahaaaaaa

DarnoKonrad: CruiserTwelve: So if the SCOTUS rules that requiring mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional, will that negate mandatory car insurance requirements by the states?

No, that's a states issue. But it could negate all sorts of other federal mandates. There are federal mandates that cars must be sold with seat belts. There are federal mandates that light bulbs must be efficient. The list of federal mandates is exhaustive.

The federal government has been mandating things for the private sector since day one -- the only thing novel about the coverage mandate is that it applies to *everyone* rather than specific private sectors.

Which isn't to say SCOTUS couldn't declare it unconstitutional, it's just going to take some bizarre contortions of logic.

Ah! I see you're acquainted with the Roberts Court.

Even Dumbmitter is going to be forced to pay companies something... when dumbmitter goes to the hospital.

if the government can require people to have health insurance, it might next make them eat broccoli.

Really? That is their argument?

vernonFL: if the government can require people to have health insurance, it might next make them eat broccoli.

Really? That is their argument?

Crisco on the incline and all that rot.