Health Care Reform Supreme Court Case

bgivens33

polaris_x wrote:

i keep posting this but no one seems to want to respond ...

but the reasons why Health Care reform won't and can't work in the US is because of privatization and the corporate interests ...

there are too many mouths to feed ... every one wanting to profit ... doctors, clinics, surgeons, pharmaceuticals, insurance, hospitals, etc ...

you can't have a socialized health care system without socializing all the components ... that means not for profit hospitals, doctors, insurance, etc ...

I agree with this 100%.

My big problem with Obamacare isn't the individual mandate, it is this half-ass approach to universal healthcare. If you want to social healthcare, then do it 100%. But with these opt-outs, opt-ins, waivers, privatization etc., it has become a trainwreck.

Johnny Abruzzo

Another testament to the barbarism of for-profit health insurance and of those who oppose universal health care:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/health/health-care-insurance-lifetime-caps/index.html?hpt=hp_bn10

gimmesometruth27

told ya....

the conserative justices are expressing concerns about the consitutionality...

i am willing to bet that thomas and scalia were gonna vote to strike it down before hearing any arguments at all...

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ ... re-mandate

peacefrompaul

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

told ya....

the conserative justices are expressing concerns about the consitutionality...

i am willing to bet that thomas and scalia were gonna vote to strike it down before hearing any arguments at all...

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ ... re-mandate

Yeah and Thomas won't say a thing about it. The guy is a little odd.

Johnny Abruzzo

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

told ya....

the conserative justices are expressing concerns about the consitutionality...

i am willing to bet that thomas and scalia were gonna vote to strike it down before hearing any arguments at all...

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ ... re-mandate

We're still paying for that 2004 election. :roll:

mikepegg44

Can any explain to me how the individual mandate of a citizen to purchase a product is constitutional without misinterpreting the commerce clause yet again?


Doesn't this open the door to forcing people to have life insurance? how about a national law that you must carry a certain amount of car insurance? If no, why can they mandate this purchase through invoking the commerce clause and not others?

Johnny Abruzzo

mikepegg44 wrote:

Can any explain to me how the individual mandate of a citizen to purchase a product is constitutional without misinterpreting the commerce clause yet again?

Doesn't this open the door to forcing people to have life insurance? how about a national law that you must carry a certain amount of car insurance? If no, why can they mandate this purchase through invoking the commerce clause and not others?

Health care is interstate commerce. It comprises 1/6 of the economy. We live in Pennsylvania and took our son to Delaware for an operation. Sounds like interstate commerce to me. I am not misinterpreting the clause. The constitution says that the Congress can regulate interstate commerce.

The reason for the individual mandate is to keep insurance premiums at a reasonable level. It is to prevent what we actuaries call "adverse selection." Adverse selection is when only, say, sick people or bad drivers buy health insurance or car insurance. The original idea for the individual mandate was a right wing think tank, and it was demanded by insurance companies in negotiating PPACA.

All that said, the law should be able to function reasonably well without the individual mandate, if that's how the Court rules. The penalty is fairly toothless anyway; a maximum penalty of about $700 per year. As long as they don't throw the whole thing away... :twisted:

bigdvs

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cnn-leg ... ruck-down/

Johnny Abruzzo

bigdvs wrote:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cnn-legal-expert-on-todays-hearing-obama-admin-a-trainwreck-obamacare-likely-will-be-struck-down/

The headline doesn't quite match the story. Sounds like Kennedy (and maybe Roberts) could still be on the fence.

Doesn't look all that great for the mandate, but we'll see about the rest of the law, which is what I'm mainly concerned about. I still think it's constitutional, but I'm not in the Supreme Court, so that doesn't really matter.

I have trouble seeing the Court strike down a law that prevents insurers from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and from rescinding coverage.

mikepegg44

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Can any explain to me how the individual mandate of a citizen to purchase a product is constitutional without misinterpreting the commerce clause yet again?

Doesn't this open the door to forcing people to have life insurance? how about a national law that you must carry a certain amount of car insurance? If no, why can they mandate this purchase through invoking the commerce clause and not others?

Health care is interstate commerce. It comprises 1/6 of the economy. We live in Pennsylvania and took our son to Delaware for an operation. Sounds like interstate commerce to me. I am not misinterpreting the clause. The constitution says that the Congress can regulate interstate commerce.

The reason for the individual mandate is to keep insurance premiums at a reasonable level. It is to prevent what we actuaries call "adverse selection." Adverse selection is when only, say, sick people or bad drivers buy health insurance or car insurance. The original idea for the individual mandate was a right wing think tank, and it was demanded by insurance companies in negotiating PPACA.

All that said, the law should be able to function reasonably well without the individual mandate, if that's how the Court rules. The penalty is fairly toothless anyway; a maximum penalty of about $700 per year. As long as they don't throw the whole thing away... :twisted:

The intent of the interstate commerce clause was to regulate agriculture and manufacturing crossing state lines for the purposes of sale. As products have become different in nature, it has been used to regulate many industries. Some of the things the court has held in the past under the commerce clause I consider to be a bastardization of intent. This is an expansion of the commerce clause to include the forcing of a transaction for the purposes of regulating it.
Congress shall regulate interstate commerce, not create commerce to regulate. A person could possible go through their life without medical care of any kind other than maybe preventative visits which could be paid out of pocket. So they are forcing that person to buy something they may well never use and not really allow them to simply pay out of pocket if the need shall arise. So in all reality they are creating a national exchange where insurance policies are bought and sold, they are forcing people to engage in that commerce, and then they are regulating it. You cannot start with the interpretation and build a law that creates the situation so that it can be regulated. We all may think it is a bad idea not to have health insurance, but it shouldn't be forced on people who may never use the product or who can pay for their healthcare out of pocket.
While fines for people may not be a lot to you, it could be a lot to them...same as it could be a lot to be required to have a certain level of coverage.
Am I wrong in thinking that insurance companies plans right now do not cross state lines? that their products are limited to and have to be registered in those states? and if that is the case, health insurance is not interstate commerce although they may pay for care that is administered in other states due to a variety of factors. it is conceivable to think that opening up the borders may well be good for the insurance industry or it may prove to raise costs...either way...by mandating the purchase of insurance on a national exchange, they are in fact CREATING interstate commerce to be regulated. This is an expansion of the most misinterpreted clause in the entire constitution. It is forcing commerce.

How about my next question, what is to stop other products deemed essential by the US government from being forced on the people?
Since industry and regulating of interstate commerce applies to the forcing of a product on people or face a penalty...what is to stop them from levying a fine on people who choose not to buy a hybrid? This is a dangerous door to open, but then again, people don't buy the slippery slope argument in discussions fed gov't police powers, so I'm not sure why I think they would possibly be interested here...It is a dangerous precedent.

Also, I love how people get mad at the conservative members of the SC for a perceived political agenda...but forget to mention that the "liberal" judges could be seen as doing the exact same thing.

peacefrompaul

Anybody else listening to the audio besides me?

bigdvs

Yes, I am.

peacefrompaul

bigdvs wrote:

Yes, I am.

:thumbup:

bigdvs

The Solicitor General is a dweeb.

Johnny Abruzzo

peacefrompaul wrote:

Anybody else listening to the audio besides me?

I can't deal with that - I'll wait to read the stories afterwards.

Johnny Abruzzo

mikepegg44 wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Can any explain to me how the individual mandate of a citizen to purchase a product is constitutional without misinterpreting the commerce clause yet again?

Doesn't this open the door to forcing people to have life insurance? how about a national law that you must carry a certain amount of car insurance? If no, why can they mandate this purchase through invoking the commerce clause and not others?

Health care is interstate commerce. It comprises 1/6 of the economy. We live in Pennsylvania and took our son to Delaware for an operation. Sounds like interstate commerce to me. I am not misinterpreting the clause. The constitution says that the Congress can regulate interstate commerce.

The reason for the individual mandate is to keep insurance premiums at a reasonable level. It is to prevent what we actuaries call "adverse selection." Adverse selection is when only, say, sick people or bad drivers buy health insurance or car insurance. The original idea for the individual mandate was a right wing think tank, and it was demanded by insurance companies in negotiating PPACA.

All that said, the law should be able to function reasonably well without the individual mandate, if that's how the Court rules. The penalty is fairly toothless anyway; a maximum penalty of about $700 per year. As long as they don't throw the whole thing away... :twisted:

The intent of the interstate commerce clause was to regulate agriculture and manufacturing crossing state lines for the purposes of sale. As products have become different in nature, it has been used to regulate many industries. Some of the things the court has held in the past under the commerce clause I consider to be a bastardization of intent. This is an expansion of the commerce clause to include the forcing of a transaction for the purposes of regulating it.
Congress shall regulate interstate commerce, not create commerce to regulate. A person could possible go through their life without medical care of any kind other than maybe preventative visits which could be paid out of pocket. So they are forcing that person to buy something they may well never use and not really allow them to simply pay out of pocket if the need shall arise. So in all reality they are creating a national exchange where insurance policies are bought and sold, they are forcing people to engage in that commerce, and then they are regulating it. You cannot start with the interpretation and build a law that creates the situation so that it can be regulated. We all may think it is a bad idea not to have health insurance, but it shouldn't be forced on people who may never use the product or who can pay for their healthcare out of pocket.
While fines for people may not be a lot to you, it could be a lot to them...same as it could be a lot to be required to have a certain level of coverage.
Am I wrong in thinking that insurance companies plans right now do not cross state lines? that their products are limited to and have to be registered in those states? and if that is the case, health insurance is not interstate commerce although they may pay for care that is administered in other states due to a variety of factors. it is conceivable to think that opening up the borders may well be good for the insurance industry or it may prove to raise costs...either way...by mandating the purchase of insurance on a national exchange, they are in fact CREATING interstate commerce to be regulated. This is an expansion of the most misinterpreted clause in the entire constitution. It is forcing commerce.

How about my next question, what is to stop other products deemed essential by the US government from being forced on the people?
Since industry and regulating of interstate commerce applies to the forcing of a product on people or face a penalty...what is to stop them from levying a fine on people who choose not to buy a hybrid? This is a dangerous door to open, but then again, people don't buy the slippery slope argument in discussions fed gov't police powers, so I'm not sure why I think they would possibly be interested here...It is a dangerous precedent.

Also, I love how people get mad at the conservative members of the SC for a perceived political agenda...but forget to mention that the "liberal" judges could be seen as doing the exact same thing.

I would say health care is already interstate commerce whether the government does something or not. Insurance plans have to cover out-of-state events; what happens if you go on vacation?

Can anyone explain to me why Social Security & Medicare are constitutional if the individual mandate of PPACA isn't?

The slippery slope issue is just ridiculous. Anybody can be a very heavy health care consumer at any time. If you show up at the ER the hospital has to provide medical services, and if you have no health insurance the costs will ultimately be borne by everybody else. Not having health insurance when you have the opportunity and ability to obtain it is freeloading, pure & simple.

I like the discussion here. Nice & civil.

peacefrompaul

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

Anybody else listening to the audio besides me?

I can't deal with that - I'll wait to read the stories afterwards.

That's too bad... It's pretty interesting. But, it does take up a couple of hours time.

peacefrompaul

bigdvs wrote:

The Solicitor General is a dweeb.

He wasn't ready today.

Johnny Abruzzo

Mitt on PPACA:

If I’m the godfather of this thing, then it gives me the right to kill it

How does that make sense? I have a godson, and I am not allowed to kill him. :?

mikepegg44

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

I would say health care is already interstate commerce whether the government does something or not. Insurance plans have to cover out-of-state events; what happens if you go on vacation?

Can anyone explain to me why Social Security & Medicare are constitutional if the individual mandate of PPACA isn't?

The slippery slope issue is just ridiculous. Anybody can be a very heavy health care consumer at any time. If you show up at the ER the hospital has to provide medical services, and if you have no health insurance the costs will ultimately be borne by everybody else. Not having health insurance when you have the opportunity and ability to obtain it is freeloading, pure & simple.

I like the discussion here. Nice & civil.

f u

Health care is one thing, we are talking about mandated commerce. I don't have to tell you that health insurance isn't the same as health care. It has nothing to do with covering out of state incidents. Nothing. It has to do with the forcing of a transaction. It could be bread as the product that is being forced. the government has the ability to REGULATE interstate commerce, not FORCE people into commerce they regulate. Wouldn't you say there is a huge difference between those two things? And if there is a difference, or even if there isn't, explain why the slippery slope argument is ridiculous...at any time i could become a giant consumer of fossil fuels. much more than my neighbor. Should the government be able to force me to by hybrid cars and trucks? or levy fines if I do not? Even more than that, couldn't they force ALL people to buy hybrid cars? These are things that are at stake. Allowing the government to mandate a purchase of a private product opens doors. If you think they won't begin to do more with that precedent, than I don't think you have paid much attention to how government and legislative bodies have worked so far. why is that ridiculous? I understand that a person can become a heavy consumer at any time...but couldn't a theoretically be able to not ever consume it or pay out of pocket for what they do consume?
I don't think the justices have a problem with regulation of a transaction that was entered into voluntarily. If the government wants to make it a law that people must purchase insurance to be seen in a clinic or preventative/treatment kind of setting i guess they would be allowed although i would disagree with that as well but it wouldn't be on a constitutional grounds. that is different than what I am saying...

Keep in mind I think Universal Healthcare is the most cost effective option, not this bill. Not at the price for what it does...And as you say there are many things that will ultimately be good no matter if they toss the individual mandate out or not...but I have a hard time believing that insurance companies won't begin to fight the new regulations and laws through lobbyist proxies if the mandate that everyone participate is gone.