If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   In case if you have missed it, yesterday was the day that President Obama's lawyers went before the Supreme Court to explain how forcing Americans to give money to corporations is somehow constitutional   (reuters.com) divider line 13
    More: Followup, President Obama, supreme courts, Americans, National Federation of Independent Business, solicitor general, individual mandate, attorney-in-fact  
•       •       •

3784 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jan 2012 at 11:47 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-01-07 08:29:20 AM
3 votes:
So if the SCOTUS rules that requiring mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional, will that negate mandatory car insurance requirements by the states?
2012-01-07 08:33:33 AM
2 votes:
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.
2012-01-07 02:29:08 PM
1 votes:
TheWhoppah: The US military, social security and FEMA at the federal level and the fire department, health department and police on the state and local level are ALL forms of government insurance that taxpayers are "forced" to buy.

Well, supporting military health is a power of article 1, section 8 and the healthcare support of public employees at the state level is a power granted to the states via the 10th amendment.

FEMA and SS are constitutional if you agree with Justice Story and Hamilton's interpretation of the general welfare clause as being carte-blanche for government, though Madison never intended it to be that way.

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?

Doubtful. The Federal government can order you to destroy your home vegetable garden if they feel that on account of your lack of involvement in vegetable commodity consumption, you are affecting interstate commerce.
2012-01-07 01:59:39 PM
1 votes:
Here's the logic:

Nobody should be unable to buy health insurance due to preexisting conditions. This is something almost everyone can agree on.

If you force insurance companies to ignore preeexisting conditions, then healthy people will simply wait to get insurance until they're sick. In this case, all insurance companies would go out of business because there's no point in providing health insurance if people don't pay at times when they're not costing the insurance company money.

To solve that problem, you then have to force everyone to buy insurance, OR you have to create a subsidized public insurer that is not working for profit. This is the only way out if you want to get around the preexisting condition thing.

Every other civilized country in the world has figured this out, and has solved the problem. I have no idea why Republicans fight so damn hard to ensure that some people will never be allowed to get insurance. I say this as a 30 year old male who is extremely healthy in every way but somehow was deemed "uninsurable" by Blue Shield of CA. There is no way to challenge this decision, and they purposely make it impossible to contact the department that makes the decision. I have literally spent about 20 hours so far trying to get this rectified. That's 20 hours I could have spent doing actual productive work.
2012-01-07 12:15:07 PM
1 votes:
cman: I would have highly preferred a universal health care system over this bullshiat Obama signed

Obama and the American people would have too.

Unfortunately, Congress got in the way.
2012-01-07 12:01:26 PM
1 votes:
Friskya: 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?


Yes.

In United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law predicated on the commerce power which purported to ban the possession of firearms near schools. In United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law predicated on the commerce power which purported to create a federal civil cause of action for victims of domestic violence. The gist of both opinions was that neither the possession of firearms near schools, nor domestic violence, are sufficiently "commercial" in nature to be properly regulable under the Commerce Clause.

Contrast the statutes at issue in Lopez and Morrison with the provision of health insurance and health care. Both health insurance and health care normally involve public commercial activity in the most ordinary sense of the phrase. The health care industry takes up 17% of the national economy. Any argument that health care is neither commercial, nor interstate in nature is just implausible. Federal regulation of health care falls well within the scope of Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce.
2012-01-07 10:23:26 AM
1 votes:
Why is it that many of the same people who deride the Bible as a fantasy about magic sky beings, resolutely believe the fairy tale of the Magic Paper that protects them and gives them power?...especially as, every damn day, the fact that they are not protected and have given away all power, is rubbed into their faces? That said, if Obama and the Democratic Party achieved every single item on their agenda, America would still be on the lowest end of modern progressive nations.

Aiming low and then failing is no way to lead a country.
2012-01-07 08:50:34 AM
1 votes:
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
2012-01-07 08:48:26 AM
1 votes:
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.
2012-01-07 08:33:14 AM
1 votes:
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?
2012-01-07 08:30:39 AM
1 votes:
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.
2012-01-07 08:28:20 AM
1 votes:
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.
2012-01-07 07:05:08 AM
1 votes:
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?
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report