19 of 21 legal experts say healthcare should stand

[Charles_Main]

they dont respect anyone who studies anything in depth

I don't know what they Taught you in school, But scanning the Headlines of Liberal News Sources and selectively focusing on only things that Re-enforce your predetermined Conclusion is not Research.

 

[oldernwiser]

This decision is going to be VERY interesting in that if SCOTUS shoots down the mandatory insurance clause, they would then open the door for businesses to challenge ERISA on the same grounds.

That is my greatest hope. The Court can repair a lot of damage with this decision if they strike it down.

And if that happens, may you forever be very gainfully employed.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, you have it backwards, if Congress wants to limit the scope of the constitution by declaring something to NOT be commerce, SCOTUS has already given that the green light. In light of the fact that SCOTUS has already said insurance IS commerce, Congress can flip and flop on this issue into the next millennium.

You're dodging the central question. Not buying insurance is, by definition, NOT commerce. Pretending otherwise is absurd in the extreme.

I don't believe I'm dodging anything. Selling insurance IS commerce per SCOTUS.

No one has ever claimed selling insurance is not commerce.

Selling insurance IS NOT commerce per McCarron-Fergusson.

Wrong, old-n-senile. McCarron-Fergusson does not claim selling insurance is not commerce. It simply gives states the authority to regulate the selling of insurance.

And there is already an established precedent for compelling you to BUY insurance, although this would fall under the legislation's regulation, which also compels the very policies that you're forced to buy.

What "precedent" allows the federal government the authority to compel you to buy something?

Thinking just a bit more, it's federal law that businesses with a certain number of employees MUST buy insurance. They MUST offer a specific amount of insurance based on a master policy. They MAY recoup some of the cost of the policy by charging their employees a fee for their insurance. That, to me, sounds like a lot of "compelling".

What "insurance" does federal law compel businesses to buy?

This decision is going to be VERY interesting in that if SCOTUS shoots down the mandatory insurance clause, they would then open the door for businesses to challenge ERISA on the same grounds.

All ERISA says is that IF an employer as a retiree health plan that it has certain fiduciary responsibilities. It does not require employers to provide retirees with a health plan. ACA doesn't provide any grounds for employers to challenge ERISA.

 

[oldernwiser]

You're dodging the central question. Not buying insurance is, by definition, NOT commerce. Pretending otherwise is absurd in the extreme.

I don't believe I'm dodging anything. Selling insurance IS commerce per SCOTUS.

No one has ever claimed selling insurance is not commerce.



Wrong, old-n-senile. McCarron-Fergusson does not claim selling insurance is not commerce. It simply gives states the authority to regulate the selling of insurance.

And there is already an established precedent for compelling you to BUY insurance, although this would fall under the legislation's regulation, which also compels the very policies that you're forced to buy.

What "precedent" allows the federal government the authority to compel you to buy something?

Thinking just a bit more, it's federal law that businesses with a certain number of employees MUST buy insurance. They MUST offer a specific amount of insurance based on a master policy. They MAY recoup some of the cost of the policy by charging their employees a fee for their insurance. That, to me, sounds like a lot of "compelling".

What "insurance" does federal law compel businesses to buy?

This decision is going to be VERY interesting in that if SCOTUS shoots down the mandatory insurance clause, they would then open the door for businesses to challenge ERISA on the same grounds.

All ERISA says is that IF an employer as a retiree health plan that it has certain fiduciary responsibilities. It does not require employers to provide retirees with a health plan. ACA doesn't provide any grounds for employers to challenge ERISA.

It's getting late, and I don't want to rehash this any more than I already have. McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 legal definition of McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. will explain the impact of the existing law - and why it was enacted in the first place.

You might want to also Google ERISA (wikipedia articles are good for synopses) and pay closer to attention to the insurance mandates contained in the REFERENCES and not the media digested and vomited crap that most folks like to spew.

Finally, do you even read more than the last page of these posts? Scroll back a few and get yourself caught up before you start calling ME senile.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't believe I'm dodging anything. Selling insurance IS commerce per SCOTUS.

No one has ever claimed selling insurance is not commerce.



Wrong, old-n-senile. McCarron-Fergusson does not claim selling insurance is not commerce. It simply gives states the authority to regulate the selling of insurance.



What "precedent" allows the federal government the authority to compel you to buy something?



What "insurance" does federal law compel businesses to buy?

This decision is going to be VERY interesting in that if SCOTUS shoots down the mandatory insurance clause, they would then open the door for businesses to challenge ERISA on the same grounds.

All ERISA says is that IF an employer as a retiree health plan that it has certain fiduciary responsibilities. It does not require employers to provide retirees with a health plan. ACA doesn't provide any grounds for employers to challenge ERISA.

It's getting late, and I don't want to rehash this any more than I already have. McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 legal definition of McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. will explain the impact of the existing law - and why it was enacted in the first place.

You might want to also Google ERISA (wikipedia articles are good for synopses) and pay closer to attention to the insurance mandates contained in the REFERENCES and not the media digested and vomited crap that most folks like to spew.

Finally, do you even read more than the last page of these posts? Scroll back a few and get yourself caught up before you start calling ME senile.

I've read every line posted in this thread. You're nothing but a senile old moron.

Furthermore, I don't take reading assignments from imbeciles. If you have support for your idiotic claims, then post it.

 

[NoNukes]

Why would anyone respect hack liberal propagandists on the govenrment payroll? That's all the majority of "law professors" are.

For one reason, every one of them is smarter than you.

Evidence?

You constantly provide the evidence.

 

[NoNukes]

It is legal, fuck you all

 

[Inthemiddle]

Obamacare is gonna burn, the majority opinion has already been written by the Chief Justice. It's over.

I don't think Roberts is going to be giving this opinion. It's going to be horrendously long, and I'm sure he's going to be all too happy to assign someone else that task. Plus, I think it's going to take an eloquence that Roberts doesn't have. I expect Scalia (if overturned, or if upheld and Scalia votes with the majority) or Kennedy (if upheld and Scalia is in the minority).

Guess I was wrong, and Bigfoot was half right. =P