Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Health Care Constitutionality

logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 7:46:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There have been a few posts on here about the US Constitution so I thought I would post the arguments concerning an upcoming case.
The arguments are complicated and the Appellate Court rulings are all over the legal yard but today it was reported that the Obama administration will argue that the Health Care Reform Act(HRA) is Constitutional on the grounds that it falls under the commerce clause and the enumerated powers of the congress. It was suggested that this argument is directed at Scalia based on his previous opinions (strict construction). This argument was no proffered in the cases in chief.
The Other side, consisting of a number of States and Liberty University also have complicated arguments, but some of the more persuasive are it violates the Commerce Clause because it requires the purchase of a product, it is a tax for a private industry, and it violates the establishment clause because it requires funding for abortion, and birth control.

Without debating the merits of the issue, certiari has been granted, It is suggested that if the Court decides the HRA is unconstitutional it will mean that all federally mandated programs are also unconstitutional. Practically this would mean that ALL mandates from the FDR administration forward will be declared unconstitutional should the US Government lose. The Court may decide this matter with only eight Justices as Justice Kagan has the appearance of a conflict.

Does a ruling against the Obama Administration regarding HRA also shoot down all mandates, and why?
Also, do you think the Court will issue its opinion before the general election?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 9:35:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/16/2012 7:46:49 PM, logicrules wrote:
There have been a few posts on here about the US Constitution so I thought I would post the arguments concerning an upcoming case.
The arguments are complicated and the Appellate Court rulings are all over the legal yard but today it was reported that the Obama administration will argue that the Health Care Reform Act(HRA) is Constitutional on the grounds that it falls under the commerce clause and the enumerated powers of the congress. It was suggested that this argument is directed at Scalia based on his previous opinions (strict construction). This argument was no proffered in the cases in chief.
The Other side, consisting of a number of States and Liberty University also have complicated arguments, but some of the more persuasive are it violates the Commerce Clause because it requires the purchase of a product, it is a tax for a private industry, and it violates the establishment clause because it requires funding for abortion, and birth control.

Without debating the merits of the issue, certiari has been granted, It is suggested that if the Court decides the HRA is unconstitutional it will mean that all federally mandated programs are also unconstitutional. Practically this would mean that ALL mandates from the FDR administration forward will be declared unconstitutional should the US Government lose. The Court may decide this matter with only eight Justices as Justice Kagan has the appearance of a conflict.

Does a ruling against the Obama Administration regarding HRA also shoot down all mandates, and why?
Also, do you think the Court will issue its opinion before the general election?

Um the law has already been passed and in place. Plans have been made and people have been put on the govt payroll. The record of laws being past and put in place and then being repealed is almost unheard of. I think prohibition was the last one. The only one I can think of. The law will stand regardless of the supreme courts decision or opinion. My opinion of course. The income Tax is an example of a supreme court opinion being ignored I believe. Could be wrong on that though.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 10:02:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/16/2012 9:35:34 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/16/2012 7:46:49 PM, logicrules wrote:
There have been a few posts on here about the US Constitution so I thought I would post the arguments concerning an upcoming case.
The arguments are complicated and the Appellate Court rulings are all over the legal yard but today it was reported that the Obama administration will argue that the Health Care Reform Act(HRA) is Constitutional on the grounds that it falls under the commerce clause and the enumerated powers of the congress. It was suggested that this argument is directed at Scalia based on his previous opinions (strict construction). This argument was no proffered in the cases in chief.
The Other side, consisting of a number of States and Liberty University also have complicated arguments, but some of the more persuasive are it violates the Commerce Clause because it requires the purchase of a product, it is a tax for a private industry, and it violates the establishment clause because it requires funding for abortion, and birth control.

Without debating the merits of the issue, certiari has been granted, It is suggested that if the Court decides the HRA is unconstitutional it will mean that all federally mandated programs are also unconstitutional. Practically this would mean that ALL mandates from the FDR administration forward will be declared unconstitutional should the US Government lose. The Court may decide this matter with only eight Justices as Justice Kagan has the appearance of a conflict.

Does a ruling against the Obama Administration regarding HRA also shoot down all mandates, and why?
Also, do you think the Court will issue its opinion before the general election?

Um the law has already been passed and in place. Plans have been made and people have been put on the govt payroll. The record of laws being past and put in place and then being repealed is almost unheard of. I think prohibition was the last one. The only one I can think of. The law will stand regardless of the supreme courts decision or opinion. My opinion of course. The income Tax is an example of a supreme court opinion being ignored I believe. Could be wrong on that though.

No, the Court is the determiner. Now, if the Court hold the law unconstitutional, it isnt in place till 2014, Congress can re-write it and try again or pass a constitutional amendment. Repeal is an entirely different matter. The Court has ruled many laws unconstitutional over the last 200years. See Griswald v. CT and Roe v. Wade for 2 examples
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 10:41:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yeah, but a real discussion on the constitutional issues would require a level of maturity that has been sorely lacking on the political forum here lately. Personally, I think the challenge should be rejected under the anti-injunction act. The individual mandate is probably unconstitutional, but severability is a mess.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 10:51:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry to double-post. I think the great irony is that simply creating a single payer system would have been unquestionably constitutional, Obama didn't do that because it would piss off the Republicans too much, and now the more market based solution is being challenged.

The really easy fix (avoiding 2400 pages of regulation or whatever) would have been to just amend 42 USC 1395o(2) deleting the words "has attained age 65 and". It would have guaranteed universal coverage and would have been one of the shortest bills ever.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 11:23:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
10th amendment
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 5:46:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/16/2012 10:41:42 PM, Mimshot wrote:
Yeah, but a real discussion on the constitutional issues would require a level of maturity that has been sorely lacking on the political forum here lately. Personally, I think the challenge should be rejected under the anti-injunction act. The individual mandate is probably unconstitutional, but severability is a mess.

Anti Injuction is not part of the Constitution, so on what authority would the court act. Injunctions are legal and come from the court.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 5:50:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/16/2012 10:51:32 PM, Mimshot wrote:
Sorry to double-post. I think the great irony is that simply creating a single payer system would have been unquestionably constitutional, Obama didn't do that because it would piss off the Republicans too much, and now the more market based solution is being challenged.

The really easy fix (avoiding 2400 pages of regulation or whatever) would have been to just amend 42 USC 1395o(2) deleting the words "has attained age 65 and". It would have guaranteed universal coverage and would have been one of the shortest bills ever.

I don't think single payer would have been upheld by the court because that is a tax for a private business and is unconstitutional. it has a nice ring, but in the US is illegal, well was until a few years ago, the doors open.
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 10:34:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 5:50:39 AM, logicrules wrote:
Anti Injuction is not part of the Constitution, so on what authority would the court act. Injunctions are legal and come from the court.
The anti-injunction act prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction until after the tax/penalty has actually been paid. Because the court doesn't have jurisdiction, you're right it can't act. Thus it can't rule the act unconstitutional.

I don't think single payer would have been upheld by the court because that is a tax for a private business and is unconstitutional. it has a nice ring, but in the US is illegal, well was until a few years ago, the doors open.
How is it any different from medicare, which has been held to be constitutional? All my proposed change did was lower the medicare eligibility age from 65 to zero.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 11:19:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 10:34:26 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/17/2012 5:50:39 AM, logicrules wrote:
Anti Injuction is not part of the Constitution, so on what authority would the court act. Injunctions are legal and come from the court.
The anti-injunction act prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction until after the tax/penalty has actually been paid. Because the court doesn't have jurisdiction, you're right it can't act. Thus it can't rule the act unconstitutional.

I don't think single payer would have been upheld by the court because that is a tax for a private business and is unconstitutional. it has a nice ring, but in the US is illegal, well was until a few years ago, the doors open.
How is it any different from medicare, which has been held to be constitutional? All my proposed change did was lower the medicare eligibility age from 65 to zero.

Thats not an act, that is an appellate court opinion. It only applies if the tax is going to the government. That would not be the case in single payer, it goes to the insurance company. The mirror game wouldn't even apply because it could not be argued that those needing insurance does not remain constant as with other "welfare" taxes. I understood your idea, it would violate legislative intention, I think.

Thats the point....no one has to take medicare, we just gotta pay. See the difference? Also, it begs the question can the government order you to pay an industry and penalize you if you do not?
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 12:54:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 11:19:57 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/17/2012 10:34:26 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/17/2012 5:50:39 AM, logicrules wrote:
Anti Injuction is not part of the Constitution, so on what authority would the court act. Injunctions are legal and come from the court.
The anti-injunction act prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction until after the tax/penalty has actually been paid. Because the court doesn't have jurisdiction, you're right it can't act. Thus it can't rule the act unconstitutional.

I don't think single payer would have been upheld by the court because that is a tax for a private business and is unconstitutional. it has a nice ring, but in the US is illegal, well was until a few years ago, the doors open.
How is it any different from medicare, which has been held to be constitutional? All my proposed change did was lower the medicare eligibility age from 65 to zero.

Thats not an act, that is an appellate court opinion. It only applies if the tax is going to the government. That would not be the case in single payer, it goes to the insurance company. The mirror game wouldn't even apply because it could not be argued that those needing insurance does not remain constant as with other "welfare" taxes. I understood your idea, it would violate legislative intention, I think.

Thats the point....no one has to take medicare, we just gotta pay. See the difference? Also, it begs the question can the government order you to pay an industry and penalize you if you do not?

I think you're confusing my two points. The I mentioned the anti-injunction act in the context of the present case at the supreme court. My medicare point was that dropping the medicare age to zero would have guaranteed universal coverage with government health insurance (yes for those who want it), and would probably be less desirable to conservatives from a public policy standpoint, but would have been unquestionably constitutional.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 4:32:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 12:54:57 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/17/2012 11:19:57 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/17/2012 10:34:26 AM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/17/2012 5:50:39 AM, logicrules wrote:
Anti Injuction is not part of the Constitution, so on what authority would the court act. Injunctions are legal and come from the court.
The anti-injunction act prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction until after the tax/penalty has actually been paid. Because the court doesn't have jurisdiction, you're right it can't act. Thus it can't rule the act unconstitutional.

I don't think single payer would have been upheld by the court because that is a tax for a private business and is unconstitutional. it has a nice ring, but in the US is illegal, well was until a few years ago, the doors open.
How is it any different from medicare, which has been held to be constitutional? All my proposed change did was lower the medicare eligibility age from 65 to zero.

Thats not an act, that is an appellate court opinion. It only applies if the tax is going to the government. That would not be the case in single payer, it goes to the insurance company. The mirror game wouldn't even apply because it could not be argued that those needing insurance does not remain constant as with other "welfare" taxes. I understood your idea, it would violate legislative intention, I think.

Thats the point....no one has to take medicare, we just gotta pay. See the difference? Also, it begs the question can the government order you to pay an industry and penalize you if you do not?

I think you're confusing my two points. The I mentioned the anti-injunction act in the context of the present case at the supreme court. My medicare point was that dropping the medicare age to zero would have guaranteed universal coverage with government health insurance (yes for those who want it), and would probably be less desirable to conservatives from a public policy standpoint, but would have been unquestionably constitutional.

First....there is no such thing as the injunction act. The only governing authority, and it is only advisory, is other Supreme Court Opinions. The opinion you reference in an appellate opinion, perhaps even a State appellate court. Well ok, so if you drop medicare to zero, how do you argue to the Court since medicare and medicaid are both bankrupt and an undue burden on the States. might fly, but it would be challenged, and I dont think congress could pass it.

This can only go three ways and I don't see how any are good for Obama.
1. Rejected as Unconstitutional,and all mandates fall. No more federal aid to individuals or states for social programs. ( No college aid, no more guaranteed loans, etc.)
2. Reject in part affirm in part. There are too many options there
3. Affirm in total. Then you get Constitutional amendment ratified by 2/3 of states, maybe.
Add that the opinion could be published in the last 2 weeks of October. Whatever it is I can't see it being good for Obama and the election. Options 1 and 3 are awful but for different reasons, and if the Court picks it apart what chance has the average person to understand it.

Also, you missed one of the main points, why would Obama's Atty general decide to argue FOR congress to have more power? That's the rub, the administration is arguing that the powers of the Congress supersede the current understanding of the constitution AND that they can do ANYTHING they want under the Constitution. Under Separate but Equal Doctrine, not letter of the Law, so too, then, may the Executive and Judiciary, no more checks. (see Truman, JFK, Eisenhower, GWB etc. re War compared with prior to Truman)
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 10:01:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think that the Affordable Care Act is probably unconstitutional. The ACA is a bad idea in many ways, including the fact it only postpones the true real solution to the problem: Single-Payer healthcare.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 10:27:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/16/2012 10:41:42 PM, Mimshot wrote:
Yeah, but a real discussion on the constitutional issues would require a level of maturity that has been sorely lacking on the political forum here lately. Personally, I think the challenge should be rejected under the anti-injunction act. The individual mandate is probably unconstitutional, but severability is a mess.

It is not.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 10:28:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 10:01:28 PM, Contra wrote:
I think that the Affordable Care Act is probably unconstitutional.

Why?

The ACA is a bad idea in many ways, including the fact it only postpones the true real solution to the problem: Single-Payer healthcare.

Could be true...
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 11:50:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ok, wow, I misjudged this thread. I thought we were having a discussion about the legal issues relating to the constitutionality of the PPACA, tut it seems we're having some other conversation.

You don't seem to know what issues are actually before the Supreme Court in the cases on the PPACA that it has agreed to hear. I'll attempt to explain them.

First....there is no such thing as the injunction act. The only governing authority, and it is only advisory, is other Supreme Court Opinions. The opinion you reference in an appellate opinion, perhaps even a State appellate court. Well ok, so if you drop medicare to zero, how do you argue to the Court since medicare and medicaid are both bankrupt and an undue burden on the States. might fly, but it would be challenged, and I dont think congress could pass it.

The anti-injunction act (which you seem to think is fake) refers to this: http://en.wikipedia.org...

It is a law that says no federal court can hear a case challenging a tax until after the tax has been paid. Whether the anti-injunction act applies (and precludes federal courts from ruling on the individual mandate until after the penalty/tax has been paid) is one of the three issues SCOTUS has agreed to rule on. On the face of it thought, it seems the anti-injucntion act precludes any court from enjoining the PPACA until after someone has actually paid the fine for not having health insurance.

This can only go three ways and I don't see how any are good for Obama.
1. Rejected as Unconstitutional,and all mandates fall. No more federal aid to individuals or states for social programs. ( No college aid, no more guaranteed loans, etc.)
Where did you get this idea? None of these wacky suggestions are even before the Supreme Court. Nobody has challenged college aid or guaranteed loans There is no suggestion in the PPACA cases to suggest that "all mandates fail." I'm sure this sounds disrespectful, and I apologize, but I'm really curious where you got the idea that somehow this case might overturn all social programs.

2. Reject in part affirm in part. There are too many options there
Yes there are a lot of options here.

3. Affirm in total. Then you get Constitutional amendment ratified by 2/3 of states, maybe.
What? If they uphold the law as constitutional then why would there be ay need for an amendment?

Add that the opinion could be published in the last 2 weeks of October. Whatever it is I can't see it being good for Obama and the election. Options 1 and 3 are awful but for different reasons, and if the Court picks it apart what chance has the average person to understand it.
Are we talking about legal or political issues here?

Also, you missed one of the main points, why would Obama's Atty general decide to argue FOR congress to have more power? That's the rub, the administration is arguing that the powers of the Congress supersede the current understanding of the constitution AND that they can do ANYTHING they want under the Constitution. Under Separate but Equal Doctrine, not letter of the Law, so too, then, may the Executive and Judiciary, no more checks. (see Truman, JFK, Eisenhower, GWB etc. re War compared with prior to Truman)

I don't understand this point. Are you saying the administration is taking a bad legal strategy? Is this a bigger issue like different-branches-of-government-shouldn't-agree? Well if so part of the idea of separation of powers was to limit fedral power such that laws could only be passed if it was really important and multiple branches agreed. On the PPACA, two of the three agreed, and we're waiting on the third.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 4:54:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 10:25:36 PM, comoncents wrote:
I find it constitutional under the commerce clause.

Pointing out how it is unconstitutional under the commerce clause, using your apparent view of this all inclusive monstrosity, is impossible, and you know it. It is good you acknowledge it isnt about Health Care, but simply about propping up companies like Well Point so we have another "bail out" of Insurance.

It unconstitutional because it requires, as an affirmative, individuals to buy not only a specific product but from a specific vendor. (In the alternative, which may be argued) There is no government interest in Insurance which rises to the level required to inhibit and restrict how one pays one's bills re. Insurance. This law will result in increase cost, increased premiums and poor health care, just like in the UK.

Having said all that, the Federal Courts, some, have already held it unconstitutional. Personally, I have had with the likes of AIG Well Point. I would bust u, and destroy insurance. No one has the guts for that, the US is a nation of cowards and babies now.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 5:08:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 11:50:28 PM, Mimshot wrote:
Ok, wow, I misjudged this thread. I thought we were having a discussion about the legal issues relating to the constitutionality of the PPACA, tut it seems we're having some other conversation.

You don't seem to know what issues are actually before the Supreme Court in the cases on the PPACA that it has agreed to hear. I'll attempt to explain them.

First....there is no such thing as the injunction act. The only governing authority, and it is only advisory, is other Supreme Court Opinions. The opinion you reference in an appellate opinion, perhaps even a State appellate court. Well ok, so if you drop medicare to zero, how do you argue to the Court since medicare and medicaid are both bankrupt and an undue burden on the States. might fly, but it would be challenged, and I dont think congress could pass it.

The anti-injunction act (which you seem to think is fake) refers to this: http://en.wikipedia.org...

It is a law that says no federal court can hear a case challenging a tax until after the tax has been paid. Whether the anti-injunction act applies (and precludes federal courts from ruling on the individual mandate until after the penalty/tax has been paid) is one of the three issues SCOTUS has agreed to rule on. On the face of it thought, it seems the anti-injucntion act precludes any court from enjoining the PPACA until after someone has actually paid the fine for not having health insurance.

This can only go three ways and I don't see how any are good for Obama.
1. Rejected as Unconstitutional,and all mandates fall. No more federal aid to individuals or states for social programs. ( No college aid, no more guaranteed loans, etc.)
Where did you get this idea? None of these wacky suggestions are even before the Supreme Court. Nobody has challenged college aid or guaranteed loans There is no suggestion in the PPACA cases to suggest that "all mandates fail." I'm sure this sounds disrespectful, and I apologize, but I'm really curious where you got the idea that somehow this case might overturn all social programs.

2. Reject in part affirm in part. There are too many options there
Yes there are a lot of options here.

3. Affirm in total. Then you get Constitutional amendment ratified by 2/3 of states, maybe.
What? If they uphold the law as constitutional then why would there be ay need for an amendment?

Add that the opinion could be published in the last 2 weeks of October. Whatever it is I can't see it being good for Obama and the election. Options 1 and 3 are awful but for different reasons, and if the Court picks it apart what chance has the average person to understand it.
Are we talking about legal or political issues here?

Also, you missed one of the main points, why would Obama's Atty general decide to argue FOR congress to have more power? That's the rub, the administration is arguing that the powers of the Congress supersede the current understanding of the constitution AND that they can do ANYTHING they want under the Constitution. Under Separate but Equal Doctrine, not letter of the Law, so too, then, may the Executive and Judiciary, no more checks. (see Truman, JFK, Eisenhower, GWB etc. re War compared with prior to Truman)

I don't understand this point. Are you saying the administration is taking a bad legal strategy? Is this a bigger issue like different-branches-of-government-shouldn't-agree? Well if so part of the idea of separation of powers was to limit fedral power such that laws could only be passed if it was really important and multiple branches agreed. On the PPACA, two of the three agreed, and we're waiting on the third.

I see, so you meant Anti-Tax Injunction Act of 1867 which is cited as USC but wrote none of that, got it. You do know why that statute was put in, even if your appeal to it indicates otherwise, see CIVIL WAR DEBT. (I think thats been paid) Not Applicable unless you admit you're taxing for the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. Also, the reason there are 2 years to get ready is States can set up their new agencies, thats a damage, ergo, no longer applicable. A Statute is not binding on the Court.

As to the rest....I think you are correct, you do not get it. If the Court, in its opinion, determines that the fed has no authority to Mandate....they all go,that is how it works. See Jim Crow, heck look at how they dance on the ADA and FMLA.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 8:51:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 4:54:46 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/17/2012 10:25:36 PM, comoncents wrote:
I find it constitutional under the commerce clause.

Pointing out how it is unconstitutional under the commerce clause, using your apparent view of this all inclusive monstrosity, is impossible, and you know it. It is good you acknowledge it isnt about Health Care, but simply about propping up companies like Well Point so we have another "bail out" of Insurance.

It unconstitutional because it requires, as an affirmative, individuals to buy not only a specific product but from a specific vendor. (In the alternative, which may be argued)

That does not make it unconstitutional.

There is no government interest in Insurance which rises to the level required to inhibit and restrict how one pays one's bills re. Insurance.

When an INC company drops people that have preexisting conditions, it is in the interest of the government to protect its citizens- that is regulating commerce.

This law will result in increase cost, increased premiums and poor health care, just like in the UK.


Everyone I know from the UK, with the exception of one, loves the healthcare system.
Increase cost and premiums are validly tested empirically, but the "poor" is a normative stance that lacks empirical evidence.
The question is where are our priorities.
Many things increases costs but it is what is best for the citizens.
Having restaurants follow a "health code" increases cost, yet it is worth the increase to ensure citizens are safe.
Forcing 18-wheeler to go a certain speed limit, in certain lanes, increase cost, but it also keeps drivers safe.
Many things increase cost, yet is appropriate for the government to regulate in the interest of its citizens.
Health care is becoming one, and the Affordable Care Act is trying to set priorities on track with many peoples idea of what should happen.

Having said all that, the Federal Courts, some, have already held it unconstitutional.

And some have held it completely constitutional- which is the right call with precedent.

Personally, I have had with the likes of AIG Well Point. I would bust u, and destroy insurance. No one has the guts for that, the US is a nation of cowards and babies now.

You have to look at precedent.
Citizens getting dropped for preexisting conditions can be regulated by the commerce clause. Not many people disagree, but they have issues with "mandate." These people fail to see precedent connected to the "necessary and proper clause" making the mandate constitutional.
Look, it is not that hard, and conservative judges have upheld the law.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 9:06:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 8:51:31 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 3/18/2012 4:54:46 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/17/2012 10:25:36 PM, comoncents wrote:
I find it constitutional under the commerce clause.

Pointing out how it is unconstitutional under the commerce clause, using your apparent view of this all inclusive monstrosity, is impossible, and you know it. It is good you acknowledge it isnt about Health Care, but simply about propping up companies like Well Point so we have another "bail out" of Insurance.

It unconstitutional because it requires, as an affirmative, individuals to buy not only a specific product but from a specific vendor. (In the alternative, which may be argued)

That does not make it unconstitutional.

There is no government interest in Insurance which rises to the level required to inhibit and restrict how one pays one's bills re. Insurance.

When an INC company drops people that have preexisting conditions, it is in the interest of the government to protect its citizens- that is regulating commerce.

This law will result in increase cost, increased premiums and poor health care, just like in the UK.


Everyone I know from the UK, with the exception of one, loves the healthcare system.
Increase cost and premiums are validly tested empirically, but the "poor" is a normative stance that lacks empirical evidence.
The question is where are our priorities.
Many things increases costs but it is what is best for the citizens.
Having restaurants follow a "health code" increases cost, yet it is worth the increase to ensure citizens are safe.
Forcing 18-wheeler to go a certain speed limit, in certain lanes, increase cost, but it also keeps drivers safe.
Many things increase cost, yet is appropriate for the government to regulate in the interest of its citizens.
Health care is becoming one, and the Affordable Care Act is trying to set priorities on track with many peoples idea of what should happen.

Having said all that, the Federal Courts, some, have already held it unconstitutional.

And some have held it completely constitutional- which is the right call with precedent.

Personally, I have had with the likes of AIG Well Point. I would bust u, and destroy insurance. No one has the guts for that, the US is a nation of cowards and babies now.

You have to look at precedent.
Citizens getting dropped for preexisting conditions can be regulated by the commerce clause. Not many people disagree, but they have issues with "mandate." These people fail to see precedent connected to the "necessary and proper clause" making the mandate constitutional.
Look, it is not that hard, and conservative judges have upheld the law.

Just one....Everyone you know from the UK....well now that settles it. Everyone I know in the UK has terrible health care, in fact they all complain about the surgery and conditions for procedures.

As I stated, it is impossible to establish unconstitutional using your view of the commerce clause because anything that involves money is under the authority of the government, making everything constitutional.

FYI...Stare Decisis is an excellent methodology for teaching law (lower case intentional) but a reprehensible method for the practice of Law.
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 10:08:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 5:08:02 AM, logicrules wrote:
I see, so you meant Anti-Tax Injunction Act of 1867 which is cited as USC but wrote none of that, got it. You do know why that statute was put in, even if your appeal to it indicates otherwise, see CIVIL WAR DEBT. (I think thats been paid) Not Applicable unless you admit you're taxing for the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. Also, the reason there are 2 years to get ready is States can set up their new agencies, thats a damage, ergo, no longer applicable. A Statute is not binding on the Court.

As to the rest....I think you are correct, you do not get it. If the Court, in its opinion, determines that the fed has no authority to Mandate....they all go,that is how it works. See Jim Crow, heck look at how they dance on the ADA and FMLA.

Ok, there are three cases before the supreme court. You can find information on each of them at:

- http://www.scotusblog.com...
- http://www.scotusblog.com...
- http://www.scotusblog.com...

Also, a very thorough analysis of all the issues is at http://www.scotusblog.com...

Those sites link to all the relevant documents from the Supreme Court and the various appellate courts from which these cases came. I strongly suggest reading them. I know it's a lot of information, but it will really help you to understand what the real issues that the Supreme Court might rule on are.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2012 7:35:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 10:08:27 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/18/2012 5:08:02 AM, logicrules wrote:
I see, so you meant Anti-Tax Injunction Act of 1867 which is cited as USC but wrote none of that, got it. You do know why that statute was put in, even if your appeal to it indicates otherwise, see CIVIL WAR DEBT. (I think thats been paid) Not Applicable unless you admit you're taxing for the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. Also, the reason there are 2 years to get ready is States can set up their new agencies, thats a damage, ergo, no longer applicable. A Statute is not binding on the Court.

As to the rest....I think you are correct, you do not get it. If the Court, in its opinion, determines that the fed has no authority to Mandate....they all go,that is how it works. See Jim Crow, heck look at how they dance on the ADA and FMLA.

Ok, there are three cases before the supreme court. You can find information on each of them at:

- http://www.scotusblog.com...
- http://www.scotusblog.com...
- http://www.scotusblog.com...

Also, a very thorough analysis of all the issues is at http://www.scotusblog.com...

Those sites link to all the relevant documents from the Supreme Court and the various appellate courts from which these cases came. I strongly suggest reading them. I know it's a lot of information, but it will really help you to understand what the real issues that the Supreme Court might rule on are.

I shall read those today. However, without getting into the weeds lawyers love, the big picture is, I think, Where is the line going to be re. legislative authority?

I know this example is going sound odd and off point but I think it goes to how important the USSC opinions are, and the consequences thereof. Bennis v. Michigan 1993... In Bennis the Court held that a municipality could seize personal and/or real property without trial and not violate any rights of the accused. The case was about Prostitution and a car. The reasoning of the majority was interesting, and I think, ignored principle. In brief it went, US seized Pirate ships in the 19th century, during prohibition US seized property deemed nuisance, In 1974 US seized a cruise ship that did not have drugs but may have had drugs in the past, Municipalities have the authority to set standards, ergo....a taking of property is a long held practice in the US.

So, Admiralty law, Prohibition law (Repealed), Drug War of Nixon, Obscenity, ergo...no trial. From this case municipalities have made money taking personal property without any finding of a Court. What might be called a Bill of Pain and Penalty. However, lawyer argued the similarities thus the Court did not consider it.

I shall read the opinions and documents, but absence of an argument may only guarantee the outcome. "The Court is infallible not because it is right but rather because it is Last." A. Hamilton.