Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Nov 14, 2011.
Right before the election, this should be interesting.
Support for "Obamacare" has gone over the 50% mark as compared to last month. I believe as time goes by the majority of U.S. citizens are realizing they can no longer afford health care as it currently exists.
Does this also apply to the feds withholding highway money if states don't have speedlimit laws. Or the fed withholding money for states that legalize certain drugs?
Reagan, every conservative's God, did the same with the drinking age.
Sorry- this will hold up too. If it doesn't, tons of laws will go down with it.
It will be an interesting argument, and if they overturn it will open a huge can of worms. I don't see them wanting to open pandoras box.
Let me just say this- I think the health care law is not a good one. We need UHC. BUT- this will have to do in the meantime. And if conservatives don't like it, they should have thought about that before they did the same crap with other laws.
The law itself isn't as big a problem (though I do NOT support it). Its the Obama's hypocritical, unilateral handing out of waivers as political favors. There should be NO waivers if Obama can say with a straight face that this law was designed to help the average ordinary person. Those are the people who's companies are getting waivers left and right.
The waivers are just another sign of how business continues as usual in Washington in spite of Obama's promises.
You should source that quote...
Epic fail on the issue of waivers. Dig a little deeper. Think a little more. Source your assertions. Then, let's talk.
That's quite a quote and I can see why you didn't reference it. It has been copied and pasted all over the web echo chamber - and not referenced anywhere.
Here is the original article from the washington times. (The author doesn't reference his claim there either and a search of the web of the author is absolutely culture wars terrible mixed with radiology pictures).
The only place I can find that tries to actually investigate the claims (from a different source) is politifact.com;
So under the old system "pretty good" US insurance only gives you $1 million of cover, but to get 'best buy' status for British worldwide travel insurance cover (including the US) you need to offer $8 million.
Shows how broken US healthcare is I guess.
The drinking age and speed limit laws did go before the Supreme Court while Reagan was still president in a case called South Dakota v. Dole.
Basically the government mandate has to be clear, related to the funds being offered, and in line with other constitutional provisions.
So the federal government can't use highway funds to mandate that the states ban diet soda because that is unrelated to highway safety or management.
I think so, but they could do some surgery on the law. The individual mandate is unique for American law. We've never had something like it before.
I think we can say for sure that Scalia and Thomas will vote against it while Sotomayor and Ginsburg will probably vote for it (I think Kagan might have to recuse since she worked in the administration when it was passed).
Roberts and Alito have never been involved in a commerce clause case, and Breyer and Kennedy have flipped in the past.
I fully support universal healthcare (in fact, I wish that's what we had gotten), but the nature of this individual mandate worries me too. Can a future Congress force me to buy a car, a house, a smartphone, a pound of beef, or a bottle of maple syrup?
I have a friend who's husband just lost his job. In order to cover herself, her husband and one child it will cost $1700 a month at a time when they can least afford it.
You're already forced to buy insurance for your car, so I don't see much difference here. The slippery slope argument (maple syrup? Really?) is as silly as saying if gays are allowed to marry then people will be marrying horses and dogs next. Both situations are fear-based red herrings and not even close to plausible.
I see it as a personal responsibility issue. Just as with auto insurance. If everyone is covered, then health problems will get taken care of sooner before they become expensive nightmares to treat and people won't have huge financial problems over their medical bills. This is a win-win for everyone. Why WOULDN'T we want everyone covered? It's in our best interest as a society.
The difference, and it is a major one in the law, is that owning, leasing, or renting a car is a predicate economic activity. You can choose to forgo the benefits of a car if you don't want to buy insurance, or you can also put up a bond with the state for the requisite liability amount (most people can't afford this of course but it is nonetheless a valid way to not pay insurance). At some point you make a rational decision to buy a car and therefore you have to be ready to bear the burden of its expenses.
The only predicate activity here seems to be being born, which as far as I know isn't a decision made by the individual who is being charged.
In constitutional terms, if the government can force you to buy a minimum quantity of one product, it can force you to buy a minimum quantity of any other product. The maple syrup lobby certainly isn't as powerful as the healthcare lobby, but what about the corn lobby? Do you really think that every Congress from now until the dissolution of the union will be immune to the pressures of industry?
The ability of people to marry animals is an entirely different type of argument because it shifts the nature of the debate from two people regardless of gender from getting married to one person and another entity that is not in the same species from getting married. We don't need to make that logical jump for this. If another lobby proves as powerful as the healthcare lobby, it would seem to be within Congress's power to grant their wish, unless the Supreme Court says otherwise.
Indeed, I wholeheartedly wish we could have universal coverage. It's cheaper, better for disease control, and is a great anti-poverty measure. Alas, that doesn't mean we can violate the constitution to achieve that end. Medicare for all could accomplish those goals without violating the constitution, and yet that wasn't the path Congress chose.
I thought the law just levied a tax on those who chose not to buy healthcare? So it really would be an issue of whether the government can tax you for doing a certain thing or not.
Can somebody explain why this is a constitutional issue? Unless you're going to argue that the govt. can't levy taxes on its citizenry, this seems a rather cut and dry argument. I mean, it has been upheld in a majority of court cases, but I'm just confused at the framing of the argument. The govt. isn't forcing you to buy health insurance at gun point, they're just going to levy an extra charge for people who choose not to, correct? So how is that unconstitutional? How is it even a constitutional issue?
We know that around 20 million people will remain uninsured after the mandate goes into effect (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/AmendReconProp.pdf). Additionally, people will be exempt from the mandate if the "individual is a member of a recognized religious sect, exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship" (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/22/consumers-guide-health-reform.aspx).
It's a constitutional issue because declining to participate in an economy activity is not a taxable thing in any other context. Every other tax is based on something you buy, sell, or earn. In that way it isn't so much a tax as it is a penalty or a non-due process taking (aka eminent domain).
Justice Thomas' wife is a political operative that works for a company that receives massive amounts of corporate money. Guess what issue she has worked on. Guess what law she has worked to get repealed.
Yep, one of the Supreme Court Justices has a wife that has a job in which she has actively sought the repeal of a law that her husband is about to rule upon.
If Kagan actually worked on the Affordable Health Care Act, then yes, she should recuse herself. That being said, Justice Thomas must recuse himself, and if he does not, then Kagan shouldn't either (even if she has direct conflicts).
Now it appears the judicial branch can be bought and sold just as easily as the executive and legislative branches:
Don't worry though, it's legal:
But who are the conservatives worried about being unethical?
That's right. Serve in the administration that passed the legislation (but have nothing to do with writing or passing the legislation) = Unethical. Dine with and attend a fundraiser for the lawyers arguing one side of the case = A-OK!
This country is ****ed.
Is it every cent of federal funding or merely those related to healthcare?
There's lots of things the government compels you to do that merely requires you being born. Everything from having certain shots as a child to paying taxes, to serving in the military if they need you, to obeying the laws set forth.
Nonsense. Lack of healthcare affects other people not just the person in question. Lack of corn or maple syrup does not affect society at large.
Now you are just splitting hairs. How does taxing those who don't buy insurance more differ from taxing everyone to pay for something that you are compelling them to have? Same difference. Just called a different name.
Of those you mentioned, the draft is the only one the government can actually force you to do, and it is based on a very old tradition in the law. It is one of the only laws we have that requires an individual to take positive steps to comply.
If you don't want your shots, you don't go to public school.
If you don't want to pay a tax, you don't do the economic activity that underlies that tax.
Here we have a tax that taxes you even if you don't do anything. You don't have to work, you don't have to own property, sell a commodity, buy an asset, or even freely give your money away.
Find me another tax that falls into this category. Find me another law that makes you buy a specific (not to mention expensive) product regardless of a volitional choice.
Sure, but that doesn't make something constitutional. A weak corn market hurts the buying power of American consumers because corn is one of our biggest exports. Can the government mandate everyone buys a minimum amount of corn to keep the import market stable? According to the logic espoused here, it could. You don't like the comparison because you don't see a legitimate crisis in corn, but to the right lobbyist, any crisis will make do when it comes to enshrining racketeering in the law.
No, it's quite different.
Your obligation to pay a tax is different from the government's obligation to provide insurance. They are severable, and they don't mandate a private transfer of wealth.
I'm even skeptical that an insurance contract under this law could be valid. What is your consideration for an insurance contract if you no choice but to enter the contract?
My point was if they over turn one doesn't that then make all of it unconstitutional.