[screensaver400]

It looks like the ruling will be announced tomorrow... Anyone want to talk about this?

My sense is that, for better or worse, the individual mandate will be found unconstitutional, and that may take the rest of Title I with it. If President Obama is re-elected, he'll either push for a tax equivalent to the mandate's penalty that everyone with coverage is exempted from or, alternatively, a straight public option, with a private insurance market for those who want it (but no break for private coverage--sort of the public school/private school model).

Any thoughts?

[Mugge]

I've read somewhere on the internet that economic and demographic necessity will eventually force the US health care system to reform. No matter what the Supreme Court thinks about it. I'll tell if I suddenly remember where I got it from.

[Kraetos]

Of course the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but the entire bill falls apart without it, and ACA works just fine in MA: we call it RomneyCare.

I'd rather see the constitution amended than the entire bill gutted, but that's not gonna happen, so we get to continue to be the only developed country in the world without universal healthcare.

[kscherer]

Heavy sigh.

Unless the Supreme Court rules the entire bill unconstitutional, they will get it wrong.

I do not have faith in them.

[screensaver400]

^Well, there are a lot of parts of the bill not really related to healthcare. Removing Title I would, I believe, get rid of what we commonly refer to as "Obamacare," without touching things unrelated to it but added to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for convenince's sake.

But what Kraetos says is right. The scheme falls apart without the individual mandate. That's actually the only reason I could see it being upheld--Basically, Scalia's logic in Raich v Gonzales. The individual mandate isn't permissible under the commerce clause, but the other provisions are. Therefore, it's necessary to have the mandate for the other provisions to work, and the mandate is then legal under Necessary and Proper.

There's still the problem with the "Proper" part (i.e., SCOTUS could conclude its not proper even if necessary). But this is the only way I can see the individual mandate upheld--I think it's clearly unjustifiable under the Commerce Clause alone.

But I'm no lawyer, and I also think Wickard and Roe are stretches--just because something doesn't make sense to me doesn't mean SCOTUS won't do it. And its not that I think any of this is bad policy--I just don't see how SCOTUS could reasonably reach these decisions.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by screensaver400 But what Kraetos says is right. The scheme falls apart without the individual mandate. That's actually the only reason I could see it being upheld--Basically, Scalia's logic in Raich v Gonzales. The individual mandate isn't permissible under the commerce clause, but the other provisions are. Therefore, it's necessary to have the mandate for the other provisions to work, and the mandate is then legal under Necessary and Proper.

Congress has 18 enumerated powers (Article 1, Section 8), none of which is related to "healthcare". The power to "regulate commerce among the several states" gives Congress the power to make commerce "regular", as in fair, open, and tariff-free (within the bounds of the 18 enumerated powers). It does not give Congress power to determine what can and cannot be sold between the states, nor the power to require The People to make purchases.

Nor does the Constitution at any point give the Supreme Court the power to "interpret the Constitution". The idea of using "precedent" is the Court's curious habit of breaking rules, and then using those rules violations to support further violations.

Massachusetts has healthcare because it is a State, and any power beyond Congress's 18 enumerated powers is relegated to the States and The People (Amendments 9 and 10). Thus, the Massachusetts "RomneyCare" bill is perfectly sound, according to the US Constitution, as it has exercised its independent power as a state to institute such a policy.

Also, if the politicians' claim is true—that the people want state-sponsored healthcare—then it should prove very easy to amend the Constitution, which is the path that should have been taken all along. But who wants to follow the law of the land anymore? Not Congress, not the Supreme Court, and certainly not the office of the President! This is about nothing more than the single largest power-grab in the history of our nation.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by kscherer Nor does the Constitution at any point give the Supreme Court the power to "interpret the Constitution".

Except that interpreting law is pretty much what judges do.

[screensaver400]

Kscherer: I agree with you fully--aside from the interpretation stuff. Judges have to interpret, but it should be in a very textualist way. I am not sympathetic to the living constitution approach. If the Constitution doesn't speak to an issue, or a textual interpretation produces an undesirable result, then change it. Don't add stuff by "interpretation."

As for the ACA, I'm just talking about what I think could happen, not what I think should.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by kscherer This is about nothing more than the single largest power-grab in the history of our nation.

That's weird, I thought it was about providing affordable healthcare to everyone.

What's the alternative? Do nothing to prevent free riders? Obviously unwise. Continue to be the only country in the world without some form of universal healthcare? Also obviously unwise. A public option? Well that's clearly the best alternative and dozens of other countries make it work, but the Republican house would never pass it because OH NOEZ SOCIALISM!

[screensaver400]

Kraetos: Either create universal coverage at the state level, pass a federal tax to produce a public option, or amend the constitution.

Whether a policy is good is secondary to SCOTUS's decision.

[Kraetos]

Universal coverage at the state level seems to make the most sense to me but I don't recall it ever being on the table.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Kraetos Universal coverage at the state level seems to make the most sense to me but I don't recall it ever being on the table.

Umm…Massachusetts?

The states do not need federal approval to set up their own, state-funded, healthcare systems.

What you want is federal oversight, which is not authorized by the Constitution!

[addison]

Originally Posted by kscherer Heavy sigh. Unless the Supreme Court rules the entire bill unconstitutional, they will get it wrong. I do not have faith in them.

Nor do I. When was the last time they struck down a major piece of legislation? They are too afraid to do that plus all of them are centralizers to one degree or another. And look at who backs the bill. The big hospital chains, Big Pharma, the insurance companies, certain doctors, the DC establishment. Who do you think they will side with? And I think the bill was written to deal with severability anyway.

Originally Posted by kscherer Umm…Massachusetts? The states do not need federal approval to set up their own, state-funded, healthcare systems. What you want is federal oversight, which is not authorized by the Constitution!

The problem is that states don't have the ability to print money when the bogus cost projections don't pan out.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by addison The problem is that states don't have the ability to print money when the bogus cost projections don't pan out.

They can cut spending and/or raise taxes.

I suppose using non-bogus cost projections is an option as well, but only as a last resort.

[screensaver400]

Looks like individual mandate is not valid under the commerce clause. Waiting on more...

Update: Wow. Looks like SCOTUS basically ignored the commerce clause arguments, decided the individual mandate was a tax, and upheld the individual mandate on that basis.

So President Obama pledges not to raise taxes. Passes a law under the commerce clause with a penalty provision. SCOTUS then decides the law was unconstitutional under the commerce clause, but would have been permitted under Congress's taxing power, so decides it's a tax and upholds it.

Another thought... Didn't the bill originate in the Senate? Don't taxes have to originate in the House?

[alcimedes]

It does not give Congress power to determine what can and cannot be sold between the states, nor the power to require The People to make purchases.

But Congress has already given themselves that power, somewhere between prohibition of alcohol (done properly with a Constitutional amendment) and today, where marijuana is prohibited, but w/o the Constitutional amendment. Or are you saying that the entire commerce clause rulings in the past by the Supreme Court are unconstitutional? (I'd buy that argument)

edit: And while I'm happy with the decision today, because it was necessary for the Healthcare changes to actually work out, I really wish it wasn't done via a Supreme Court ruling of this kind.

[kscherer]

Congratulations. We can now all be ordered to purchase any private product from any private vendor at the whim of the feds. Fail, and you will be taxed into poverty.

America, you have just lost whatever scrap of freedom you had left. But, you get what you ask for!

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by kscherer Congratulations. We can now all be ordered to purchase any private product from any private vendor at the whim of the feds. Fail, and you will be taxed into poverty. America, you have just lost whatever scrap of freedom you had left. But, you get what you ask for!

Yes, that was our last remaining scrap of freedom. You nailed it.

[FFL]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Yes, that was our last remaining scrap of freedom. You nailed it.

Yep.

We're all Socialists now. Get used to it, folks.


In other news.... who knew that Roberts was a sleeper agent?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Yes, that was our last remaining scrap of freedom. You nailed it.

You'll be walking around with an ankle monitor, starting tomorrow. Also, no more non-approved clothing! Ever!

[chucker]

Consider moving to Canada.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by FFL We're all Socialists now. Get used to it, folks.

Actually I believe we are fascist socialists, since we don't have our freedom anymore, or something.

Anyways, I look forward to my phone call from the government tomorrow, instructing me what to wear, where to work, what to buy, and who to vote for, because apparently we no longer have any freedoms.

[Bryson]

I love how everyone thinks that "moving to Canada" is that easy. As a veteran of Canada Immigration and it's bizarre an Byzantine practices, i can assure you it really isn't.

[chucker]

The difference between us is that I fully support your rights

Except, of course, basic human rights such as health.

(Apparently, the post has since been deleted. Whatever. Arguing that socialism is invariably bad is fine, though I strongly disagree. Arguing, however, that socialism is disrespectful of someone's rights is disingenuous.)

[torifile]

I'm a health care provider and I'm incredibly relieved at this ruling. Until you work with someone who is uninsured or underinsured(or are yourself one of those), you don't get the importance of this bill. It's not enough but it's a huge step forward. While I am not always happy with Obama, I am proud of his willingness to lead.

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Yes, that was our last remaining scrap of freedom. You nailed it.

So, just to tease you a little now, Brave Ulysses:

Does your statement translate into people from Scandinavia aren't free? We all have universal health care funded though high taxation and a lot of other schemes for redistribution of wealth, which I myself would not hesitate to call "socialist" in nature. Yet, nothing of this makes me feel less free. Sure I might have more money if it was a case of every man to himself, but the safety net provided actually makes me feel more willing to take some risks because I know I won't end up in the gutter if things don't work out as I planned. Also, walking home in a dark empty street is a lot less worrisome when nobody is starving or desperately needing money for medical treatment.

What does make me feel less free, is when I have to carefully measure out any liquids I wan't in my carry-on luggage or when my internet history gets logged by my ISP. And where did those requirements come from? The mighty USA who is afraid of terrorists and pirates.

Off course there are also some pretty spectacular examples of freedom failures in Denmark. For example, the tax authorities can snoop into almost any matter without any sort of warrant and if you try and fight them in court they will, as a matter of principle, spend as many resources as needed to defeat you. Just so nobody else will dare to fight them the next time around. But you don't see me being so dramatic about it, despite however serious the issue might be. There are after all good arguments as to why tax collection can't always be a civilized affair. I don't agree with my current administrations views on taxes, but I don't suspect the government is outright trying to steal my freedom either.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by chucker Except, of course, basic human rights such as health. (Apparently, the post has since been deleted. Whatever. Arguing that socialism is invariably bad is fine, though I strongly disagree. Arguing, however, that socialism is disrespectful of someone's rights is disingenuous.)

I have a Right to Health? Ok, sure, why not... but if you're saying that I can claim by right somebody else's labor or services, then I'll have to disagree.

[torifile]

Originally Posted by Mugge So, just to tease you a little now, Brave Ulysses: Does your statement translate into people from Scandinavia aren't free? We all have universal health care funded though high taxation and a lot of other schemes for redistribution of wealth, which I myself would not hesitate to call "socialist" in nature. Yet, nothing of this makes me feel less free. Sure I might have more money if it was a case of every man to himself, but the safety net provided actually makes me feel more willing to take some risks because I know I won't end up in the gutter if things don't work out as I planned. Also, walking home in a dark empty street is a lot less worrisome when nobody is starving or desperately needing money for medical treatment. What does make me feel less free, is when I have to carefully measure out any liquids I wan't in my carry-on luggage or when my internet history gets logged by my ISP. And where did those requirements come from? The mighty USA who is afraid of terrorists and pirates. Off course there are also some pretty spectacular examples of freedom failures in Denmark. For example, the tax authorities can snoop into almost any matter without any sort of warrant and if you try and fight them in court they will, as a matter of principle, spend as many resources as needed to defeat you. Just so nobody else will dare to fight them the next time around. But you don't see me being so dramatic about it, despite however serious the issue might be. There are after all good arguments as to why tax collection can't always be a civilized affair. I don't agree with my current administrations views on taxes, but I don't suspect the government is outright trying to steal my freedom either.

I think BU was being facetious.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by Dave I have a Right to Health? Ok, sure, why not... but if you're saying that I can claim by right somebody else's labor or services, then I'll have to disagree.

Who is saying that the doctors, nurses, etc have to provide their services for free? They will be compensated by the insurance companies or government( depending on which heath care system a country has). What we are saying is that someone shouldn't be denied healthcare because they can't afford it. That it is wrong that someone who needs a heart transplant can't get it because he can't afford the procedure and/or his insurance company won't pay for it.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Dave I have a Right to Health? Ok, sure, why not... but if you're saying that I can claim by right somebody else's labor or services, then I'll have to disagree.

What he said.