19 of 21 legal experts say healthcare should stand

[francoHFW]

Pub dupes fighting for their right to be screwed by the greedy rich, corporations, and cheering the country's ruin. Read something.

 

[dblack]

In point of fact, SCOTUS has already held the opinion that insurance IS commerce, and should be regulated at the federal level. In the case against South Eastern Underwriters in 1945, they actually held the door open for Congress to make the declaration of what is or is not considered commerce. Congress, in the McCarron-Fergusson Act of 1946, said insurance wasn't commerce, and placed the burden of regulation on the individual states. Congress does have the power to change their minds and reverse themselves.

Awesome. So anything Congress decrees to be "commerce" is commerce? Even not doing commerce is commerce? Lewis Carroll would relish this.

We already have federally mandated funding of our Medicare system, as well as locally mandated funding of our Medicaid system.

Mandated funding of government programs is called taxes. The Constitution grants Congress that power. The Constitution doesn't, however, grant Blue Cross Blue Shield the power to tax us.

 

[Harry Dresden]

because you constantly insult any expert who doesnt agree with you

so do you...

 

[The T]

Hugely wrong. Individual mandate is going to be struck down. THAT is the engine that makes ObamaCare tick...

You cannot FORCE commerce of any sort and then regualte it. Where will it end? IF it is upheld? Where does it end? Government may make you purchase ANYTHING they like with impunity.

The DEATH of Liberty.

In point of fact, SCOTUS has already held the opinion that insurance IS commerce, and should be regulated at the federal level. In the case against South Eastern Underwriters in 1945, they actually held the door open for Congress to make the declaration of what is or is not considered commerce. Congress, in the McCarron-Fergusson Act of 1946, said insurance wasn't commerce, and placed the burden of regulation on the individual states. Congress does have the power to change their minds and reverse themselves.

We already have federally mandated funding of our Medicare system, as well as locally mandated funding of our Medicaid system. This, I believe, falls under the category of regulation. AFAIK, the only litmus test for deciding the constitutionality of government regulation is one of fairness in it's application. We also pay mandatory taxes paying for items and programs most of us will never need, and which many of us don't want. This has been challenged constitutionally, and upheld.

The article in the OP made an interesting note - 85.7% of the 21 "scholars" questioned said that if the insurance portion of the ACA was struck down, SCOTUS would lose credibility. This is probably the one statistic that has a verifiable certainty.

Can the Government COMPEL citizens to engage in COMMERCE against thier will?

THAT is the underlying question.

Answer is NO.

 

[Seawytch]

Hugely wrong. Individual mandate is going to be struck down. THAT is the engine that makes ObamaCare tick...

You cannot FORCE commerce of any sort and then regualte it. Where will it end? IF it is upheld? Where does it end? Government may make you purchase ANYTHING they like with impunity.

The DEATH of Liberty.

In point of fact, SCOTUS has already held the opinion that insurance IS commerce, and should be regulated at the federal level. In the case against South Eastern Underwriters in 1945, they actually held the door open for Congress to make the declaration of what is or is not considered commerce. Congress, in the McCarron-Fergusson Act of 1946, said insurance wasn't commerce, and placed the burden of regulation on the individual states. Congress does have the power to change their minds and reverse themselves.

We already have federally mandated funding of our Medicare system, as well as locally mandated funding of our Medicaid system. This, I believe, falls under the category of regulation. AFAIK, the only litmus test for deciding the constitutionality of government regulation is one of fairness in it's application. We also pay mandatory taxes paying for items and programs most of us will never need, and which many of us don't want. This has been challenged constitutionally, and upheld.

The article in the OP made an interesting note - 85.7% of the 21 "scholars" questioned said that if the insurance portion of the ACA was struck down, SCOTUS would lose credibility. This is probably the one statistic that has a verifiable certainty.

Can the Government COMPEL citizens to engage in COMMERCE against thier will?

THAT is the underlying question.

Answer is NO.

Health Insurance isn't like other commerce. It's NOT broccoli.

 

[The T]

In point of fact, SCOTUS has already held the opinion that insurance IS commerce, and should be regulated at the federal level. In the case against South Eastern Underwriters in 1945, they actually held the door open for Congress to make the declaration of what is or is not considered commerce. Congress, in the McCarron-Fergusson Act of 1946, said insurance wasn't commerce, and placed the burden of regulation on the individual states. Congress does have the power to change their minds and reverse themselves.

We already have federally mandated funding of our Medicare system, as well as locally mandated funding of our Medicaid system. This, I believe, falls under the category of regulation. AFAIK, the only litmus test for deciding the constitutionality of government regulation is one of fairness in it's application. We also pay mandatory taxes paying for items and programs most of us will never need, and which many of us don't want. This has been challenged constitutionally, and upheld.

The article in the OP made an interesting note - 85.7% of the 21 "scholars" questioned said that if the insurance portion of the ACA was struck down, SCOTUS would lose credibility. This is probably the one statistic that has a verifiable certainty.

Can the Government COMPEL citizens to engage in COMMERCE against thier will?

THAT is the underlying question.

Answer is NO.

Health Insurance isn't like other commerce. It's NOT broccoli.

Exchange of MONEY for goods or services is commerce DERP.

This isn't hard.

 

[Charles_Main]

Doesn't really matter what the "experts" say.

Its what the SC says that counts.

um, Under our Constitution, the SCOTUS is the Experts.

Besides the who in their right mind thinks 21 Law Professors is a Valid Measure of what people who know the law thinks will happen?

You don't have to be an expert in law to know that the Federal Government forcing you to Buy something from a Private company, Not because you want to Drive a Car, But simply because you are alive, Is Completely Unprecedented.

I call BS on you 19 out of 21 Experts BS. sample size to small, and it's likely a group of Obama supporting, Liberal Lawyers saying it lol.

 

[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).

 

[Charles_Main]

Can the Government COMPEL citizens to engage in COMMERCE against thier will?

THAT is the underlying question.

Answer is NO.

Health Insurance isn't like other commerce. It's NOT broccoli.

Exchange of MONEY for goods or services is commerce DERP.

This isn't hard.

Why has nobody even Talked about the Fact that the Fed has the Power to Regulate "Interstate" Commerce, and as the system is set up now, You are not even allowed to fucking buy Insurance from an Out of state Company, So exactly how the fuck are the regulating Interstate Commerce when everyone is by law forced to buy Insurance not from any Company in the Nation, but only from the Handful in their state.

The Mandate is going down, No 2 ways about it. My guess is most if not all of the rest of the Bill is Upheld, Which of course is stupid, Considering the Mandate was used to Score the Bill and Determine it's cost, No Mandate no way to Fund the fucking Bill.

The whole thing should be scrapped and we should go back to square one. We need real Reforms Targeted and lowering cost, Because high Cost is the Problem, If cost was lower we could better afford to Cover those who can not afford it, You don't fix a Problem caused by Out of Control Cost, Simply by Forcing everyone to buy the out of Control Priced Insurance. You fix the Problem by LOWERing God Damn Prices.

If this thing is Over turned Obama will piss and moan and say a few white guys and one Uncle Tom just took your health care way.

But make No Mistake this is his Fucking Fault. Or do you forget how he was telling us we need to act right now, Fast on Health Care. No time to Read the Bill even, We have to act now our people will die.

Well when you don't debate, and you don't even give people time to read the Final Written Bill, what you get is what we got. Something that does not work. Period.

 

[bripat9643]

In point of fact, SCOTUS has already held the opinion that insurance IS commerce, and should be regulated at the federal level. In the case against South Eastern Underwriters in 1945, they actually held the door open for Congress to make the declaration of what is or is not considered commerce.

The fact that you think this decision is relevant only shows what a moron you are. Whether insurance is commerce isn't even up for debate.

Congress, in the McCarron-Fergusson Act of 1946, said insurance wasn't commerce, and placed the burden of regulation on the individual states. Congress does have the power to change their minds and reverse themselves.

Wrong. The fact that Congress declines to regulate some industry does not imply they have decided that industry is not "commerce." You only managed to extend your idiocy with that claim.

We already have federally mandated funding of our Medicare system, as well as locally mandated funding of our Medicaid system. This, I believe, falls under the category of regulation. AFAIK, the only litmus test for deciding the constitutionality of government regulation is one of fairness in it's application.

ROFL! It's truly astounding how many idiocies you can pack into a single post.

We also pay mandatory taxes paying for items and programs most of us will never need, and which many of us don't want. This has been challenged constitutionally, and upheld.

So? Again, no one involved in this matter is contesting the Constitutionality of taxation. You should just quit before you make a total fool of yourself.

The article in the OP made an interesting note - 85.7% of the 21 "scholars" questioned said that if the insurance portion of the ACA was struck down, SCOTUS would lose credibility. This is probably the one statistic that has a verifiable certainty.

It would only lose "credibility" with morons like you. They aren't quivering in their boots over that prospect.

 

[blackhawk]

Is this the same Bloomberg that gave us a poll showing Barak Obama leading Mitt Romney by 13 points? If so it would raise some questions about the political leanings and possible bias of the scholars they cite for me.

 

[Oldstyle]

Obama Health Law Seen Valid, Scholars Expect Rejection - Bloomberg



The U.S. Supreme Court should uphold a law requiring most Americans to have health insurance if the justices follow legal precedent, according to 19 of 21 constitutional law professors who ventured an opinion on the most-anticipated ruling in years.

Only eight of them predicted the court would do so.

learn to read your sources, dipshit...

Five of the 21 professors who responded, including Whitman, said the court is likely to strike down the coverage requirement. Underscoring the high stakes and complexity of the debate, eight described the outcome as a toss-up.

Well, one thing is for damn sure: either TruthMatters cannot read or cannot perform simple addition and subtraction.

What an ignoramus!!!!!!!

To TruthMatters: Your level of comprehension prevents you from even finding the truth. This post proves to everyone and for all times that you are a 10 watt bulb in a 100 watt world. Change your name. Suggestion: Imadumbass.

LOL...pretty much sums up Truthmatters...

 

[tjvh]

First they GIVE Bush the election in 2000.

and now they deside everything in a neo con manner.

It took 11 posts before you mention Boooooosh. Thought it would have been sooner.

 

[jillian]

If it doesn't get upheld, who pays for the treatment of the uninsured? It's not like ambulances and ERs are going to refuse service, are they?

they think we should "let them die".

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I just have this feeling its going down.

damn I hope Im wrong

Go with the casino business model on that. You won't be wrong 100 percent of the time, but, in your case, if you bet on yourself being wrong 100 percent of the time, you're more than likely to come out ahead.

 

[Inthemiddle]

From the link...

Law schools included were: Columbia University; Duke University; Harvard University; New York University; Northwestern University; Stanford University; the University of California at Berkeley; the University of Chicago; the University of Michigan; the University of Pennsylvania; the University of Virginia, and Yale University.

Liberal bastions all...

You know, Scalia was a professor at U of Chicago, as well as Virginia. He's a liberal, I'm sure....

 

[oldernwiser]

Hugely wrong. Individual mandate is going to be struck down. THAT is the engine that makes ObamaCare tick...

You cannot FORCE commerce of any sort and then regualte it. Where will it end? IF it is upheld? Where does it end? Government may make you purchase ANYTHING they like with impunity.

The DEATH of Liberty.

In point of fact, SCOTUS has already held the opinion that insurance IS commerce, and should be regulated at the federal level. In the case against South Eastern Underwriters in 1945, they actually held the door open for Congress to make the declaration of what is or is not considered commerce. Congress, in the McCarron-Fergusson Act of 1946, said insurance wasn't commerce, and placed the burden of regulation on the individual states. Congress does have the power to change their minds and reverse themselves.

We already have federally mandated funding of our Medicare system, as well as locally mandated funding of our Medicaid system. This, I believe, falls under the category of regulation. AFAIK, the only litmus test for deciding the constitutionality of government regulation is one of fairness in it's application. We also pay mandatory taxes paying for items and programs most of us will never need, and which many of us don't want. This has been challenged constitutionally, and upheld.

The article in the OP made an interesting note - 85.7% of the 21 "scholars" questioned said that if the insurance portion of the ACA was struck down, SCOTUS would lose credibility. This is probably the one statistic that has a verifiable certainty.

Can the Government COMPEL citizens to engage in COMMERCE against thier will?

THAT is the underlying question.

Answer is NO.

The best answer I can give to this is: Do you drive a car? Are you not compelled to buy insurance (or show financial responsibility) before you can drive that car?

It would seem to me that the precedent has already been set as to whether you can be "compelled" to buy something.

 

[Avatar4321]

In point of fact, SCOTUS has already held the opinion that insurance IS commerce, and should be regulated at the federal level. In the case against South Eastern Underwriters in 1945, they actually held the door open for Congress to make the declaration of what is or is not considered commerce. Congress, in the McCarron-Fergusson Act of 1946, said insurance wasn't commerce, and placed the burden of regulation on the individual states. Congress does have the power to change their minds and reverse themselves.

We already have federally mandated funding of our Medicare system, as well as locally mandated funding of our Medicaid system. This, I believe, falls under the category of regulation. AFAIK, the only litmus test for deciding the constitutionality of government regulation is one of fairness in it's application. We also pay mandatory taxes paying for items and programs most of us will never need, and which many of us don't want. This has been challenged constitutionally, and upheld.

The article in the OP made an interesting note - 85.7% of the 21 "scholars" questioned said that if the insurance portion of the ACA was struck down, SCOTUS would lose credibility. This is probably the one statistic that has a verifiable certainty.

Can the Government COMPEL citizens to engage in COMMERCE against thier will?

THAT is the underlying question.

Answer is NO.

The best answer I can give to this is: Do you drive a car? Are you not compelled to buy insurance (or show financial responsibility) before you can drive that car?

It would seem to me that the precedent has already been set as to whether you can be "compelled" to buy something.

One could simply choose not to drive. One can also drive without insurance. Though I wouldnt recommend it.

 

[PredFan]

Another in along unbroken string of TM Fail threads.

 

[Political Junky]

If, by chance, the Court rules against the ACA, the Democratic Party will go for Medicare for everyone.