Supreme court unlikely to delay Obama healthcare ruling

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leegal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SamH said:
And in that case it’s for interstate commerce. That’s why farmers can own a semi to haul grain from the field to the local elevator and not have a DOT registration. But if they want to haul from elevator to elevator they have to comply with federal DOT regulations and have IFTA, drug testing, heavy vehicle tax and everything else.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We do not want to set a precedent where any power the States have should also be granted to the Federal government - so the “auto insurance” analogy has always puzzled me.

As citizens, we should strive to keep the word “proper” in the “Necessary and Proper Clause.”
 
Ilya Shapiro of the CATO Institute has some interesting things to say on the Supreme Court arguments

dailycaller.com/2012/03/28/court-looks-poised-to-strike-down-individual-mandate-obamacare
Supreme Court Completes Hearings: Strike All or Part of Obamacare?

lifenews.com/2012/03/28/supreme-court-completes-hearings-strike-all-or-part-of-obamacare
**A Radical Restructuring of Health Insurance **
One of the most fervent promises President Obama made to the American people before passage of the health overhaul law was “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”
Click to expand...
But, even before the law fully takes effect, millions of people are losing “the coverage they have now,” and tens of millions more surely will follow.
Click to expand...
A major survey of employer plans provides evidence. McKinsey & Company surveyed 1,300 employers across industries, geographies, and employer sizes, and concluded that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will lead to a “radical restructuring” of job-based health coverage. McKinsey found that 45 to 50 percent of employers say they will definitely or probably pursue alternatives to employer-sponsored health insurance in the years after it takes effect in 2014. One-third of employers say they “will definitely or probably drop coverage after 2014.” Among employers who knew most about the new health law, half said they were likely to drop coverage.
Click to expand...
Since an estimated 156 million non-elderly Americans get health insurance at work, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, that means as many as 78 million people could be forced to find other sources of coverage.
Click to expand...
So clearly President Obama’s key promise will be broken after the law fully takes effect. But the deterioration in coverage already has begun as many people already are losing the coverage they have now as health insurers are dropping out of markets in many states. Some of the carriers are exiting because of onerous state regulations, others are victims of a faltering economy, but the cascade has been accelerated by the rules that already have taken effect and the many more that are to come as a result of PPACA.
Click to expand...
galen.org/newsletters/a-radical-restructuring-of-health-insurance
 
_Abyssinia said:
galen.org/newsletters/a-radical-restructuring-of-health-insurance
Click to expand...
Conclusion
Click to expand...
Clearly, millions of people are having their coverage disrupted, violating the promise that President Obama — and virtually all of those in Congress who voted for the law — made to the American people. As the cascade continues, support will grow for an alternative approach
to PPACA.
Click to expand...
And that approach will be the government take-over of the whole health care market.
 
I thought this was an interesting point:
The alleged constitutional justification for Obamacare’s individual insurance coverage mandate can be summarized in one sentence: The federal government has the authority to preemptively regulate your economic activity.
Click to expand...
President Obama, famous denouncer of preemptive war, declares that he has not only the power but the constitutional authority to regulate every American’s economic behavior before it happens in the interest of making the market function the way he would like it to function. It’s like Minority Report come to life, but with economic transactions, not crime, as the activity the state intervenes to alter before it occurs.
Click to expand...
Arguing before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli asserted that “the system does not work” for Americans who do not have health insurance, therefore Washington has an interest in “regulating the means by which health care is purchased,” which he said was all the individual mandate does.
Click to expand...
Justice Anthony Kennedy stopped him right there and asked, “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?”
Click to expand...
spectator.org/archives/2012/03/29/obamacares-preemptive-regulato
 
If the argument from the government’s side sounds confused/confusing, it’s because it’s so weak as to be absurd.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
If the argument from the government’s side sounds confused/confusing, it’s because it’s so weak as to be absurd.
Click to expand...
Right. Basically the government is saying that it has the right to create commerce so that it can regulate it. I am trying to find where in the Constitution it gives Congress the authority to create commerce…looking…

…and…no, its not there…

how about…no, that’s not it either…

…well, I think I have a defective copy of the Constitution. Mine doesn’t have the phrase that Congress is enumerated the power to create commerce for the purpose of regulating it. Damn that CATO institute and their bias, flawed copies of the Constitution.

Just a minute! :newidea:

I’ll go look online at the copy at the National Archives!!!

Just a second…

…okay, its gotta be around here somewhere…

…:mad: The copy at the national archives is flawed too! Its a conspiracy! Someone is replacing the Constitution with flawed copies that have Congress’ authority to create commerce taken right out of it!
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Right. Basically the government is saying that it has the right to create commerce so that it can regulate it. I am trying to find where in the Constitution it gives Congress the authority to create commerce…looking…

…and…no, its not there…

how about…no, that’s not it either…

…well, I think I have a defective copy of the Constitution. Mine doesn’t have the phrase that Congress is enumerated the power to create commerce for the purpose of regulating it. Damn that CATO institute and their bias, flawed copies of the Constitution.

Just a minute! :newidea:

I’ll go look online at the copy at the National Archives!!!

Just a second…

…okay, its gotta be around here somewhere…

…:mad: The copy at the national archives is flawed too! Its a conspiracy! Someone is replacing the Constitution with flawed copies that have Congress’ authority to create commerce taken right out of it!
Click to expand...
I believe Sandy Berger has the original copy you are looking for in his pants. Have fun with that.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
That is an unfair and inaccurate characterization of the law. The law allows you to pay an additional percentage in income taxes OR purchase health insurance. One of the points made in the discourse before the Supreme Court is that the government is not requiring you to purchase a service (healthcare) you aren’t already using or won’t use in the future ; merely regulating how you pay for it. Either you get insurance or you pay taxes so that the government will pay for you.
Click to expand...
Ah. I love the fascist language you employ that proves my point. “The law allows you”. It doesn’t allow anything. It forces at gunpoint as I already illustrated.

As to your second point, that’s pure nonsense. If I get sick, I should go to the doctor and pay. If the prices are too high for me and everyone else, then we can talk about breaking up a monopoly.

“Not requiring you to purchase a service you aren’t already using or won’t use in the future”. That’s none of your concern or the concern of the government. I haven’t been to a doctor in many years; I plan to keep it that way. When I need it, I’ll pay for it which is what used to happen in the olden days Ron Paul always refers to (installment plans, etc) before all these insurance schemes began raising costs and obscuring them.

And not everyone uses healthcare the way the government defines it. What if I went to a private hospital and took care of it? No cost to the gov’t; therefore no right force me at gunpoint to pay them. Sorry, no dice. This is an assault on God given liberty. But as I said, it will eventually be passed in some form in the future. People like yourself are all too willing to give government your own freedoms and the freedoms of your neighbors in a classic Faustian bargain. Shameful.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Justice Breyer: Can Congress Make Americans Buy Computers, Cell Phones, Burials? ‘Yes, of Course’

cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-breyer-can-congress-make-americans-buy-computers-cell-phones-burials-yes-course
Click to expand...
Having listened to the audio, I think he was surprised that the State didn’t answer yes when asked. I think he was expecting the State to argue that they do have the power under the commerce clause to force people to buy stuff. I’m not sure he was suggesting the argument was correct, but rather that was the argument he expected. I could be wrong, but that’s how I interpreted it. Maybe I’m just giving him the benefit of the doubt.🤷

Realistically, how do you distinguish the health care market from any other necessary market. I mean everyone is in the real estate market, the food market, energy markets, communication markets, transportation markets, etc at some point in their lives. Why is healthcare special and none of the others are?
 
Dawnia said:
Having listened to the audio, I think he was surprised that the State didn’t answer yes when asked. I think he was expecting the State to argue that they do have the power under the commerce clause to force people to buy stuff. I’m not sure he was suggesting the argument was correct, but rather that was the argument he expected. I could be wrong, but that’s how I interpreted it. Maybe I’m just giving him the benefit of the doubt.🤷

Realistically, how do you distinguish the health care market from any other necessary market. I mean everyone is in the real estate market, the food market, energy markets, communication markets, transportation markets, etc at some point in their lives. Why is healthcare special and none of the others are?
Click to expand...
Of course it isn’t, and if you listen to the argument, it’s like a game of Twister - trying to say something is different when it is obviously not. There’s no logic in it, because there can’t be. It must be frustrating to even try and articulate something that is that wrong.
 
Obama was somewhat disingenuous.

Let X = the current number of health care providers

Let Y = the number of people currently with health care insurance

Therefore, X ÷ Y is how health care service is now distributed

Let 40 million the number of people currently without health care insurance [the liberal claim]

But obama claims that,

“You can keep your current plan if you like it;”

“Health care will be cheaper under my plan;” In fact, under obama’s math, it is possible for it to go down 3,000%.

Therefore, X ÷ Y will equal X ÷ (Y + 40 million) when he is done. Like the price going down 3,000%, something here doesn’t compute.​
 
Dawnia said:
Having listened to the audio, I think he was surprised that the State didn’t answer yes when asked. I think he was expecting the State to argue that they do have the power under the commerce clause to force people to buy stuff. I’m not sure he was suggesting the argument was correct, but rather that was the argument he expected. I could be wrong, but that’s how I interpreted it. Maybe I’m just giving him the benefit of the doubt.🤷

Realistically, how do you distinguish the health care market from any other necessary market. I mean everyone is in the real estate market, the food market, energy markets, communication markets, transportation markets, etc at some point in their lives. Why is healthcare special and none of the others are?
Click to expand...
Here is a critique of the ‘health care is unique’ argument from Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Florida v. HHSL

uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/ca11/201111021.pdf

‘Health care is unique’ is a poor argument. I read this online and it makes sense. Everyone needs transportation. If Obamcare supporters are correct in that regulating health care is constitutional, then Congress could compel Americans to buy cars, or perhaps even a certain brand of car. Everyone needs housing; logic of ObamaCare: Congress can require citizens to spend a minimum percent of their income on housing.
 
Dawnia said:
Having listened to the audio, I think he was surprised that the State didn’t answer yes when asked. I think he was expecting the State to argue that they do have the power under the commerce clause to force people to buy stuff. I’m not sure he was suggesting the argument was correct, but rather that was the argument he expected. I could be wrong, but that’s how I interpreted it. Maybe I’m just giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that there are four justices who would support any expansion of government power and who regard any limitation on government power as archaic. Bryer is among those. The attorney for the federal government at least had the good sense to pretend that we still have a constitutionally limited government.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Keep in mind that there are four justices who would support any expansion of government power and who regard any limitation on government power as archaic. Bryer is among those. The attorney for the federal government at least had the good sense to pretend that we still have a constitutionally limited government.
Click to expand...
I gathered that he was all for the healthcare law, regardless of how it affects anyone. But with that one particular argument I don’t think he was expecting the government to even pretend that there are limits.
 
_Abyssinia said:
…‘Health care is unique’ is a poor argument. I read this online and it makes sense. Everyone needs transportation. If Obamcare supporters are correct in that regulating health care is constitutional, then Congress could compel Americans to buy cars …
Click to expand...
Or to KEEP them from buying cars and force them into public transit.
 
sedonaman said:
Or to KEEP them from buying cars and force them into public transit.
Click to expand...
Yes they could say to protect the environment, because of climate change, everyone must give up their cars or no more cars for sale or limit certain number of cars per family, and be forced to use public transport only.
 
Dawnia said:
I gathered that he was all for the healthcare law, regardless of how it affects anyone. But with that one particular argument I don’t think he was expecting the government to even pretend that there are limits.
Click to expand...
I do wonder, as I think you do, what he was thinking. What answer was he seeking? If he had gotten the government attorney to agree with him, did he think that would somehow persuade the other justices to support the law?

If so, he is not merely a supporter of unlimited ferderal power, he is oblivious that anyone might not share his views.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top