NATION

PASSWORD

Obamacare Insurance Mandate Ruled Constitutional

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Few if any of you have even tried to rebut the Court's reaso

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:34 pm

greed and death wrote:I find several flaws with the court's ruling.
They fail to differentiate those who can afford and those who can not afford out of pocket care.
Furthermore I find the courts logic, Health care must be mandated because the bill that mandates its care sets conditions requiring it to be mandated, to be circular.


It's fine if you "find several flaws with the court's" reasoning, but the ones you allege aren't really there.

1. The distinction you suggest the court fails to make is irrelevant.

2. That is not the court's logic at all -- although the holding in Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 24-25 (2005), quoted by the court would allow something close to such bootstrapping (if necessary).

The District Court's actual analysis is rather straight-forward.

A. Congess has the power to regulate activites that substantially affect interstate Commerce. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558-59 (1995); Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 150 (1971). (This is well-established and only disputed by those who are essentially loony.)

B. All that is required by the Commerce Clause is for Congress to have a rational basis for concluding the regulated activities, “taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce." Raich, 545 U.S. at 22. The power of Congress pursuant to the Commerce Clause may reach purely local, non-commercial activity, simply because it is an integral part of a broader statutory scheme that permissibly regulates interstate commerce. See, e.g., Raich, 545 U.S. at 26; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

C. Congress clearly has a rational basis for concluding that the activities effected by the health insurance "mandate" substantially affect interstate commerce:
There is a rational basis to conclude that, in the aggregate, decisions to forego insurance coverage in preference to attempting to pay for health care out of pocket drive up the cost of insurance. The costs of caring for the uninsured who prove unable to pay are shifted to health care providers, to the insured population in the form of higher premiums, to governments, and to taxpayers. The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket, is plainly economic. These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance. These are the economic effects addressed by Congress in enacting the Act and the minimum coverage provision.


D. Although SCOTUS has said tangential strings of connections between non-economic activity and interstate Commerce are not enough to bring such activity within the Commerce Clause, choosing whether or not to buy health insurance is an economic activity AND the connection to interstate commerce is not tangential.

E. As a wholly independent ground upon which the HCRA's mandate is constitutional, it is within Congress’s power to regulate wholly intrastate, wholly non-economic matters that form “‘an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.’” Raich, 545 U.S. at 24-25 (quoting United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561 (1995)). Here, the health care industry is undisputably interestate commerce and the HRCA is a larger regulation of that economic activity. The court explains how the mandate is essentially to that legitimate scheme -- even if it were otherwise outside Congress's power. Again, this is a finding of Congress and the President which the District Court is simply saying isn't unreasonable.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:38 pm

Reminds me of something I had heard in US History II, something along the lines of the US Supreme Court being unable to rule against "Future potential profit", this of course being a prime example of that, afterall, guaranteed customers is the surest potential profit I've ever heard.

And on the police analogy: The police aren't a private company. This is more akin to all of us being forced to purchase Blackwater Agents to protect us from robbery, or face a fine.

Disgusts me.

User avatar
Militsia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1384
Founded: May 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Militsia » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:40 pm

I know that there are a lot of families that are forced to buy insurance they do not need.
Some people would be better off not working, due to the Obama care system .
Last edited by Militsia on Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The only easy day is yesterday
Report Suspicious Activity
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:
Sdaeriji wrote:Let's ban Militsia from making threads, eh?

I agree. It's usually some sort of xenophobic moral guardian stuff.

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:42 pm

Militsia wrote:I know that there are a lot of families that are forced to buy insurance they do not need.
Some people would be better off not working, due to the Obama care system .

Do not need? More like can't afford.

User avatar
Vandengaarde
Minister
 
Posts: 2952
Founded: Jun 18, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Vandengaarde » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:43 pm

My state requires car insurance, and this is simply the same thing for health care. I don't see what the big argument is for.
When debating me or discussing something with me, remember five things:
1. I'm not moderate.
2. I'm not fascist/a nazi.
3. I'm conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues.
4. I won't bother looking for six million sources for you.
5. I'm not always serious!
Also, read this!: A story written by a friend.

Magical Mystery Tour!
I should probably be marrying British East Pacific right now, since I love her and all, but nooooo. >>
Signature husband of KatBoo and Zeth Rekia.

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:44 pm

Mossat wrote:Like I said, Cat Tribe, I am a Conservative of Lesser Intellect than A Liberal Progressive, so I'm going to let THIS do the talking for me.

(OOC: I believe we are posting with great rapidity so our repsonses to our statements may be delayed and overlapped)


Your false modesty is a bit disingenuous after your rant about the unconstitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act.

As for the bizarre, obscure editorial you linked, it hardly makes a coherent argument as to how the HCRA is unconstitutional. "People have sued saying it is unconstitutional," "some pundits say it is unconstitutional," and "SCOTUS has been misinterpreting the Commerce Clause for 80-100 years" are less than persuasive arguments -- let alone specific, detailed reasons why the law is unconstitutional. That your source blatantly lies about the District Court's reasoning in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama (the subject of this thread) is just the final nail in its credibility.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Militsia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1384
Founded: May 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Militsia » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:49 pm

Maurepas wrote:
Militsia wrote:I know that there are a lot of families that are forced to buy insurance they do not need.
Some people would be better off not working, due to the Obama care system .

Do not need? More like can't afford.


Not always the case, for a lot of families it has made sense to just have insurance for the more serious stuff like cancer, while paying for everything else with cash. It is wrong to force people into more coverage than they need or want.
The only easy day is yesterday
Report Suspicious Activity
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:
Sdaeriji wrote:Let's ban Militsia from making threads, eh?

I agree. It's usually some sort of xenophobic moral guardian stuff.

User avatar
Vandengaarde
Minister
 
Posts: 2952
Founded: Jun 18, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Vandengaarde » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:50 pm

Militsia wrote:
Maurepas wrote:Do not need? More like can't afford.


Not always the case, for a lot of families it has made sense to just have insurance for the more serious stuff like cancer, while paying for everything else with cash. It is wrong to force people into more coverage than they need or want.

You can't get "cancer insurance".
When debating me or discussing something with me, remember five things:
1. I'm not moderate.
2. I'm not fascist/a nazi.
3. I'm conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues.
4. I won't bother looking for six million sources for you.
5. I'm not always serious!
Also, read this!: A story written by a friend.

Magical Mystery Tour!
I should probably be marrying British East Pacific right now, since I love her and all, but nooooo. >>
Signature husband of KatBoo and Zeth Rekia.

User avatar
Militsia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1384
Founded: May 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Militsia » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:59 pm

Vandengaarde wrote:My state requires car insurance, and this is simply the same thing for health care. I don't see what the big argument is for.

The minimal required car insurance is to cover the cost of you damaging someone elses property. Your state does not require you to have a full coverage car insurance.
The only easy day is yesterday
Report Suspicious Activity
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:
Sdaeriji wrote:Let's ban Militsia from making threads, eh?

I agree. It's usually some sort of xenophobic moral guardian stuff.

User avatar
Vandengaarde
Minister
 
Posts: 2952
Founded: Jun 18, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Vandengaarde » Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:00 pm

Militsia wrote:
Vandengaarde wrote:My state requires car insurance, and this is simply the same thing for health care. I don't see what the big argument is for.

The minimal required car insurance is to cover the cost of you damaging someone elses property. Your state does not require you to have a full coverage car insurance.

So how is requiring minimal health insurance such a bad thing?
When debating me or discussing something with me, remember five things:
1. I'm not moderate.
2. I'm not fascist/a nazi.
3. I'm conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues.
4. I won't bother looking for six million sources for you.
5. I'm not always serious!
Also, read this!: A story written by a friend.

Magical Mystery Tour!
I should probably be marrying British East Pacific right now, since I love her and all, but nooooo. >>
Signature husband of KatBoo and Zeth Rekia.

User avatar
Militsia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1384
Founded: May 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Militsia » Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:03 pm

Vandengaarde wrote:
Militsia wrote:The minimal required car insurance is to cover the cost of you damaging someone elses property. Your state does not require you to have a full coverage car insurance.

So how is requiring minimal health insurance such a bad thing?


Well, if it had been an insurance that covered potential damage on someone elses health then yes it would be similar.
The only easy day is yesterday
Report Suspicious Activity
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:
Sdaeriji wrote:Let's ban Militsia from making threads, eh?

I agree. It's usually some sort of xenophobic moral guardian stuff.

User avatar
MisanthropicPopulism
Minister
 
Posts: 3299
Founded: Apr 10, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby MisanthropicPopulism » Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:06 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Mossat wrote:Like I said, Cat Tribe, I am a Conservative of Lesser Intellect than A Liberal Progressive, so I'm going to let THIS do the talking for me.

(OOC: I believe we are posting with great rapidity so our repsonses to our statements may be delayed and overlapped)


Your false modesty is a bit disingenuous after your rant about the unconstitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act.

As for the bizarre, obscure editorial you linked, it hardly makes a coherent argument as to how the HCRA is unconstitutional. "People have sued saying it is unconstitutional," "some pundits say it is unconstitutional," and "SCOTUS has been misinterpreting the Commerce Clause for 80-100 years" are less than persuasive arguments -- let alone specific, detailed reasons why the law is unconstitutional. That your source blatantly lies about the District Court's reasoning in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama (the subject of this thread) is just the final nail in its credibility.

Never mind that it can't figure out what debate, exactly, it is having. Is it debating the legality of the healthcare reform act? Is it debating the legitimacy of the commerce clause? Is it using both of those as examples of abuses of power by the government since in their personal belief the Constitution is not a living document? Who knows!
Last edited by MisanthropicPopulism on Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
When life gives you lemons, lemonade for the lemonade god!

User avatar
MisanthropicPopulism
Minister
 
Posts: 3299
Founded: Apr 10, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby MisanthropicPopulism » Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:10 pm

Vandengaarde wrote:
Militsia wrote:The minimal required car insurance is to cover the cost of you damaging someone elses property. Your state does not require you to have a full coverage car insurance.

So how is requiring minimal health insurance such a bad thing?

Using that logic, what, exactly is minimum health insurance? If "minimum car insurance" is "insurance which covers the cost of damaging some one else's property," then "minimum healthcare insurance" would be "insurance which covers the cost of your various illnesses and diseases which affect another person." So if we take into account that any debilitating illness causes a significant ripple effect, then the only minimum healthcare insurance is full and total.
When life gives you lemons, lemonade for the lemonade god!

User avatar
Saiwania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15108
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Saiwania » Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:29 pm

You can opt out of auto insurance by driving a motorcycle or by not driving, with Obamacare you have no choice. Why should I as a young person (not making as much money to begin with) have to pay more for illegals, fat, old, or unhealthy people? My health is from my own habits and lifestyle, not anyone else's fault or problem and I don't believe this scheme will lower the costs down at all. The insurance companies can't even compete across state lines and doctors will still be practicing defensive medicine.
Last edited by Saiwania on Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Dyakovo
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 83162
Founded: Nov 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Dyakovo » Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:52 pm

greed and death wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:So you plan on going to jail for tax evasion?

the law specifically forbids jail time and felony tax evasion charges.
Leaving only Misdemeanor tax evasion, basically a fine up to 5,000.
Though refusal to pay that could result in jail time.

The only way for him to be certain that "He doesn't pay a dime into it" is to not pay taxes at all...
Don't take life so serious... It isn't permanent...
Freedom from religion is an integral part of Freedom of religion
Married to Koshka
USMC veteran MOS 0331/8152
Grave_n_Idle: Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods, the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.
Ifreann: Odds are you're secretly a zebra with a very special keyboard.
Ostro: I think women need to be trained
Margno, Llamalandia, Tarsonis Survivors, Bachmann's America, Internationalist Bastard B'awwwww! You're mean!

User avatar
Dyakovo
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 83162
Founded: Nov 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Dyakovo » Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:53 pm

Militsia wrote:I know that there are a lot of families that are forced to buy insurance they do not need.
Some people would be better off not working, due to the Obama care system .

Considering the fact that the mandate has not yet gone into effect I call bullshit.
Don't take life so serious... It isn't permanent...
Freedom from religion is an integral part of Freedom of religion
Married to Koshka
USMC veteran MOS 0331/8152
Grave_n_Idle: Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods, the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.
Ifreann: Odds are you're secretly a zebra with a very special keyboard.
Ostro: I think women need to be trained
Margno, Llamalandia, Tarsonis Survivors, Bachmann's America, Internationalist Bastard B'awwwww! You're mean!

User avatar
Dyakovo
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 83162
Founded: Nov 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Dyakovo » Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:54 pm

Saiwania wrote:You can opt out of auto insurance by driving a motorcycle or by not driving, with Obamacare you have no choice.

Sure you do. You can stop living.
Don't take life so serious... It isn't permanent...
Freedom from religion is an integral part of Freedom of religion
Married to Koshka
USMC veteran MOS 0331/8152
Grave_n_Idle: Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods, the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.
Ifreann: Odds are you're secretly a zebra with a very special keyboard.
Ostro: I think women need to be trained
Margno, Llamalandia, Tarsonis Survivors, Bachmann's America, Internationalist Bastard B'awwwww! You're mean!

User avatar
Lacadaemon
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5322
Founded: Aug 26, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Lacadaemon » Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:56 pm

Eat your gruel peasants. The insurance industry is hungry.
The kind of middle-class mentality which actuates both those responsible for strategy and government has little knowledge of the new psychology and organizing ability of the totalitarian States. The forces we are fighting are governed neither by the old strategy nor follow the old tactics.

User avatar
The Commie Master Race
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Oct 08, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Commie Master Race » Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:14 pm

Militsia wrote:
Vandengaarde wrote:So how is requiring minimal health insurance such a bad thing?


Well, if it had been an insurance that covered potential damage on someone elses health then yes it would be similar.


If you get medical treatment and aren't able to pay, you are harming others, at least financially. Would you be OK with denying treatment to uninsured people who are unable to pay? Even if they're dying?

User avatar
The Commie Master Race
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Oct 08, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Commie Master Race » Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:18 pm

Saiwania wrote:You can opt out of auto insurance by driving a motorcycle or by not driving, with Obamacare you have no choice. Why should I as a young person (not making as much money to begin with) have to pay more for illegals, fat, old, or unhealthy people? My health is from my own habits and lifestyle, not anyone else's fault or problem and I don't believe this scheme will lower the costs down at all. The insurance companies can't even compete across state lines and doctors will still be practicing defensive medicine.


Insurance premiums are higher for old people, smokers, etc. to compensate for their higher health care costs.

User avatar
The Lone Alliance
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5944
Founded: May 25, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Lone Alliance » Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:26 pm

Mossat wrote:Well, if congress were to tell us what was in the Health Care Bill and not hide it from us, despite their stressing "transparency," maybe the public would do something about it.

Instead we get Nancy Pelosi...
"Let's vote on the bill, then let's read it"

Wrong. There were 6+ months of reading what's going into the bill.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -Herman Goering
--------------
War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; -William Tecumseh Sherman

User avatar
The Twilight Shadow
Envoy
 
Posts: 231
Founded: Jun 02, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Twilight Shadow » Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:27 pm

The short answer is if I have to pay for my own healthcare I'd rather save up for it. Health insurance can refuse you coverage when you need it depending or their definitions. I don't trust a corporation of any kind to put my best interests ahead of their profits and that's exactly what you have to do to have an ethical medical system: put the patients needs first. I'm just glad I live in Canada and we still have a public health care system but the way things are going things could go down the shitter real fast. Also isn't the whole concept of capitalism based on consentual agreements? Yes everyone gets sick but one shouldn't be forced to use private insurance if they don't want to, as opposed to public health or just saving their money.
Last edited by The Twilight Shadow on Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your sig.

User avatar
The Commie Master Race
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Oct 08, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Commie Master Race » Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:32 pm

The Twilight Shadow wrote:The short answer is if I have to pay for my own healthcare I'd rather save up for it. Health insurance can refuse you coverage when you need it depending or their definitions. I don't trust a corporation of any kind to put my best interests ahead of their profits and that's exactly what you have to do to have an ethical medical system: put the patients needs first. I'm just glad I live in Canada and we still have a public health care system but the way things are going things could go down the shitter real fast.


The new health care law will make it much harder for insurance companies to cancel coverage. We'll see when the mandate takes effect if it actually works the way it's supposed to. I would prefer the Canadian system myself.

User avatar
The Commie Master Race
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Oct 08, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Commie Master Race » Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:41 pm

The Twilight Shadow wrote:Yes everyone gets sick but one shouldn't be forced to use private insurance if they don't want to, as opposed to public health or just saving their money.


You can pay a tax penalty instead if you don't want to buy insurance. That's what Massachusetts has now, and the tax penalty is much less than a typical insurance plan would cost. No one will arrest you if you don't buy insurance, and if you legitimately never go to the doctor, you might save money by staying uninsured.

Medicaid and Medicare will still exist too, so not everyone is going to be on private insurance.

User avatar
Das Preussische Volk
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 22
Founded: Sep 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Das Preussische Volk » Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:52 pm

That is the weakest legal reasoning I have seen in a long time. I hope this goes to the Supreme Court, because Kennedy is likely to swing to the right on this issue and strike down the, obviously unconstitutional, Obamacare bill.
Economic Left/Right: 2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.90

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: -Ocelot-, 21st Century Rome, Bienenhalde, Chestaan, Google Adsense [Bot], Gormwood, Ifreann, Jebslund, Kowani, Living Corporations, Loben The 2nd, Neanderthaland, Nova Cyberia, Novus America, Petrolheadia, Platypus Bureaucracy, Proctopeo, Rio Cana, Sasebo Naval District, The Chuck, Totally Not OEP, Washington Resistance Army

Advertisement

Remove ads