OFFLINE

Twenty-six states ... over half ... enjoined into one lawsuit.

“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and
regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here ...

... Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void"

I say scrap the whole damn thing and do it right or don't do it at all.

You?

OFFLINE

I like Ross Perot's idea of test-firing a new plan in various areas before applying it to the whole nation in one broad sweeping motion. And if it's broken before it even gets started, then the whole nation doesn't suffer, and they're able to revise as necessary until they eventually have a final product that's actually and widely favorable and functional.

But does that idea work with something as big and convoluted as health care? I haven't a clue. But I know I don't like calling around trying to find a new doctor only to find they're all not accepting new patients. And I don't like having a medical need right now - only to find my doctor tells me "We can see you in a week and a half", which then forces me to use the E.R. if the need is great enough. Also, I really don't like widespread Dr incompetency. And I damn sure don't like personnel managers openly confessing that their company's medical insurance is not good insurance. Would test-firing make me happy? I dunno, but I'm happy to try it in small areas first.

OFFLINE

I like the incremental approach ... instead of crafting the whole magilla and nobody reading or understanding it, do it in phases with concrete measurables, deliverables, checkpoints, and success criteria.

That's how I've always done reengineering in big business plans.

OFFLINE

I dunno if this is a silly question or not. But does Health Care in NY need to be 100% equal to Health Care in Arizona? Or, are there any kinds of reasonable variances/differences relative to location?

OFFLINE

I say scrap the damn thing and keep the government out of my personal life.

AT&T has already stated they will drop health coverage because it's cheaper to pay the fine.

My friends who own small businesses can't afford the higher rates.

And it was IRRESPONSIBLE for Senators and Representatives to vote in favor of a bill they had not totally read.

Nancy Pelosi you're a dufus!

OFFLINE

well the dumbasses didn't even bother to include a severance clause in the bill, and the DOJ argued that the entire law hinged on the individual mandate, so in a sense, they got what they were asking for. from square one, the problem with obamacare is that it's just another massive entitlement, and does virtually nothing to bring healthcare costs down.

what i find remarkable is that in 08, obama criticized hillary for her plan including an individual mandate, saying that, "‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house."

these very words came back to bite him in the ass, as judge vinson quoted them in his ruling. the problem now is that if the SC overturns this ruling, then theoretically, the federal government will be granted the authority to mandate everyone to buy a house, or anything else for that matter.

with any luck, if the republicans in the senate can force a vote on repealling the healthcare law, all it will take is for 4 dems/independents to switch sides in order to make it a reality.

OFFLINE

This makes 2 court judgements that have ruled the law unconstitutional and 2 court judgments that have ruled the opposite.

The next round of appeals will happen sometime around May for the earlier rulings.  If the Supreme Court decides to hear a case. That might be a year or two down the road yet.

All four judges have ruled according to the political party of their nomination to the position.  I was going to say that I agree with the position of the majority of constitution scholars…but that might be a reflection of the party bias many assume of collegiate faculty.

Until the appeals run through, it is still the law.

OFFLINE

Just heard that several (D's and R's) are/have introduced bills to go directly to the Supremes.

It's not without precedent.  And I agree.  Git r' dun.

OFFLINE

this is the most awesome thing i've read all week. brilliant!


In South Dakota five legislators have introduced legislation that would make it mandatory for anyone who reaches the age of 21 to purchase a firearm that they would then use for their self-defense.

It's known as the "Act to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self-defense of themselves and others." In political terms, it's a smackdown to the "Affordable Care Act." Republican Hal Wick from Sioux Falls is sponsoring the bill and concedes it is unlikely to pass, but he's using it to illustrate what many critics of the health care law believe -- that the requirement for individuals to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

"Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not," he told the Argus Leader. "But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance."

OFFLINE

Yes the Supreme Court could possibly hear a case before the appeals court but that is highly unlikely.  It has only happened when it has involved presidential powers directly and not any legislation.  It would set a precedent that they would most likely not care for.

The biggest difference in the South Dakota legislation, is the courts have already ruled the individual states can mandate...what's left is the question whether federal law can mandate.  If they could prove that mandatory gun ownership is necessary for the general welfare, they could actually pass this.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Keith Larson:
Yes the Supreme Court could possibly hear a case before the appeals court but that is highly unlikely.  It has only happened when it has involved presidential powers directly and not any legislation.  It would set a precedent that they would most likely not care for.

The biggest difference in the South Dakota legislation, is the courts have already ruled the individual states can mandate...what's left is the question whether federal law can mandate.  If they could prove that mandatory gun ownership is necessary for the general welfare, they could actually pass this.

If I'm understanding you (and I may or may not be), I don't think equating state to federal authority is a good argument.

First, you have the enumerated powers ... differences between state and federal authority.  Constitutionally, they're not the same.  States have more sovereignty than the Federal government.  (We should always remember, it was the states who created the Federal government and its limits.  The framer's intent was never for it to be the other way around.)

And if this notion of parallel or transferable example of authority were to apply, then the Federal government should acknowledge AZ's illegal immigration authority.

OFFLINE

I guess it did somewhat sound like I was suggesting equating federal and state authority.  I sometimes try to shorten things to prevent a more or less yawn factor.

Courts have ruled that states, specifically Massachusetts, have the ability to mandate insurance coverage within their state.  The question is if the federals can mandate it.  Unlike many that claim no federal precedent, I personally think it is very close to the cases involving Social Security and unemployment insurances that the court will find it passes.  Partly, it revolves around the Hamiltonian or Madison constitutional interpretations.  But I also think that the current court may have a slightly more bent to Madison so it might not pass...but they thought the same thing about the court in '37 so I'm not going to actually guess which way they'll fall.

I was also suggesting that the South Dakota bill is NOT totally out of the realm of possibility.  It may well have the power, if they can prove that doing so would actually be in the general welfare.  I personally think that's a bit of a stretch.

I also think that the main reasons for passing by the normal appeals process is because of two reasons...that it is politically charged and the money being spent.  The politically charged part is mainly a reason to keep the process slower.  Appeals processes are always expensive, it might mean any challenge could skip if they grant it for that reason.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Keith Larson:

The question is if the federals can mandate it.  Unlike many that claim no federal precedent, I personally think it is very close to the cases involving Social Security and unemployment insurances that the court will find it passes.  

The other side of the argument ...

First, the Feds shot themselves in the foot by ferociously arguing, both before bill passage and also to the court, "The individual mandate is not a tax!"  Why?  Political B.S. ... "Vote for me!  And if you make less than $250K, you will *NOT* see your taxes raised!"  Right?

Social Security and Unemployment are taxes.  So, since the Feds are officially and legally on record multiple times saying the individual mandate is not a tax, that nullifies any comparative or inclusive arguments.

Second, per Vinson's decision, under the Commerce Clause, the Federal government is empowered to tax activities  Both Social Security and Unemployment are taxes on activities ... working.   Under Obamacare, the Federal government is trying to levy a payment on inactivity ... for not doing anything ... and that's not Constitutional.  It's not within the scope of the Commerce clause.

OFFLINE

I once had a lease on an apartment that said I could have a cat but no dog.  So I Had a dog and named her Cat.

I usually try to back the politician that lies to me least.  I have never found a national level one that has not ever done so.  And most of them would say they may have exaggerated and used hyperbole, but of course they haven't lied.  But a dog is a dog, and a lie is a lie, and a tax is a tax.

Judges Moon and Steeh have both come to the conclusion that the choice to buy insurance or is an activity:

Quote: "Regardless of whether one relies on an insurance policy, one's savings, or the backstop of free or reduced-cost emergency room services, one has made a choice regarding the method of payment for the health care services one expects to receive. Far from "inactivity," by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance."

Competing views in the district courts are one the main reasons the Supreme Court eventually decides to hear a case.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Keith Larson:

Judges Moon and Steeh have both come to the conclusion that the choice to buy insurance or is an activity:

Quote: "Regardless of whether one relies on an insurance policy, one's savings, or the backstop of free or reduced-cost emergency room services, one has made a choice regarding the method of payment for the health care services one expects to receive. Far from "inactivity," by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance."

Competing views in the district courts are one the main reasons the Supreme Court eventually decides to hear a case.

I agree.  When an entity purchases insurance, that is an activity.  So if an entity chooses not to purchase insurance, they're inactive.

And that's where the Constitutional crisis arises.  If the government chooses to mandate a payment on an entity for inactivity, that's unconstitutional.  So the argument breaks down completely.  They're mandating payment from the "inactivity" group while they only have authority to mandate payments on the "activity" group.  Constitutionally, they're charging the wrong class.

OTOH, if I look at it through their eyes ... the two cited judges make their argument that (paraphrased) one is going to have to pay for medical services anyway.  It's just now or later.  So if their reasoning holds, they're both activities and there's no moral justification for the government to charge one class of citizens and not the other.  If their argument is valid, then both groups should have to pay the government since both groups are theoretically "choosing to pay" for the same kind of activities.

OTOH, there's no connection between the usage of services and the Federal payment.  Stated differently, if I don't use medical services, I get charged.  That's charging me for inactivity.

Anywho ... I doubt we'll resolve it here.  But a *VERY* good and civil discussion.  Thanks!  I really appreciate it!

And whether the Supremes declare it Constitutional or not, I hope we all realize that we need to scrap this albatross and go back and do it right.  As it stands, it's a disaster and will trigger the collapse of our economy.

Hopefully, we all will be able to see this truth and will agree we need to do something to correct the course before it's too late.