19 of 21 legal experts say healthcare should stand

[Avatar4321]

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

They can try. Why they are so determined to abdicate their responsibilities to the government is beyond me.

 

[Dr.House]

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

Yes, because the country can definitely afford THAT...

You don't think before you type, do you?

 

[Texanmike]

First they GIVE Bush the election in 2000.

and now they deside everything in a neo con manner.

Wait. A liberal complaining about the Supreme Court? Wow. If it weren't for the Supreme Court blowing a whole bunch of decisions you wouldn't even have a platform to stand on.

Mike

 

[oldernwiser]

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.

In 1945, SCOTUS disagreed. They said that insurance contracts weren't so very different from interstate communications - telegraph/telephone, etc. That's not broccoli either. SCOTUS said that interstate commerce (at least as far as the constitution was concerned) happened when money crossed state lines whether for tangible goods or intangibles such as contracts, and when money crossed state lines it was the job of the legislature to regulate the transactions. They also said it wasn't up to them to narrow the scope of the constitution.

 

[syrenn]

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.

I see the lathering starting already.



BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[oldernwiser]

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.

I was actually waiting for this....

There aren't very many people in this country who can make it from cradle to grave without ever coming in contact with medical providers at some point. You can also choose not to live - but I'd withhold my recommendations for now.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

In looking at your post and the angle in which it is written, I must ask, are all SCOTUS ruling written in stone?
The issue here is, once Obama released the $800 million for IRS enforcement of ACA, that reinforced the notion that ACA is not commerce. It is a tax. And because ACA DID NOT go through a budget committee, it's passage should never have occurred.
The Obama admin first insisted the ACA was commerce. Then considered it a tax. When the bill could not be scored as a tax, they again insisted it was commerce.

 

[The Infidel]

Since The Supremes can deny the very existence of an entire state and all the people living there it should be no stretch at all for them to totally ignore the constitution.

I have to say... you could be right.

 

[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.

In looking at your post and the angle in which it is written, I must ask, are all SCOTUS ruling written in stone?

Nope - they aren't, and you knew that already.

However, SCOTUS DOES use prior opinions to adjudicate new questions since they tend to look really foolish if they reverse themselves too often. My response was - more or less - in reference to another poster who complained there was no precedents set, when, in fact there are plenty.

As to my "angle", I'm simply pointing out some of the real facts I've uncovered since trying to understand ACA, and as to how insurance came to be in the first place. If you need to know my real feelings on ACA itself, look at some of my other posts on the subject - I'm not really happy about it, but not for the Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly reasons.

 

[The Infidel]

they dont respect anyone who studies anything in depth

How the fuck would you know... you've never studied up on an issue

 

[The Infidel]

So people that study and teach the Constitution see precedent in the mandate, but because of the HIGHLY partisan SCOTUS, they don't think it will pass.

Pretty sad...

What precedent?

Note BigReb the SCOTUS is suddenly 'Partisan' According to some on the left here?

But it wont be if it goes their way

 

[oldernwiser]

The issue here is, once Obama released the $800 million for IRS enforcement of ACA, that reinforced the notion that ACA is not commerce. It is a tax. And because ACA DID NOT go through a budget committee, it's passage should never have occurred.
The Obama admin first insisted the ACA was commerce. Then considered it a tax. When the bill could not be scored as a tax, they again insisted it was commerce.

However, there has been a provision for funding AD&D, and Medicare/Medicaid, or whatever it's called in your state, for a long time now. ERISA made it clear that you CAN be assessed for medical contributions, and that it CAN be mandated by the feds. Whether you call it a tax or not, you still have to report your medical contributions to the IRS.

I think I missed where the administration tried to get this into IRS tax code - could you share a reference?

 

[oldernwiser]

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.

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.

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.

I guess you could, possibly, jump to that way of thinking. ACA says you ARE going to pay for insurance. You can pay the system (a tax, perhaps) or you can pay BCBS. If you can pay a premium, you get to opt out of the tax.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

I was actually waiting for this....

There aren't very many people in this country who can make it from cradle to grave without ever coming in contact with medical providers at some point. You can also choose not to live - but I'd withhold my recommendations for now.

So what your saying the choice accept your point of view or die?

Yeah cant imagine why people who love freedom disagree with you.

 

[oldernwiser]

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

I was actually waiting for this....

There aren't very many people in this country who can make it from cradle to grave without ever coming in contact with medical providers at some point. You can also choose not to live - but I'd withhold my recommendations for now.

So what your saying the choice accept your point of view or die?

Yeah cant imagine why people who love freedom disagree with you.

While your response doesn't surprise me much, this isn't my "point of view", it's just how things are. The statement was that we CAN'T be compelled to buy something, and I'm saying that we already ARE. You can agree or not - but that just isn't the point.

 

[dblack]

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.

And it's about time that precedent was reversed. I've been fighting this kind of bullshit corporatism since I was seventeen years old and I'll be damned if I'll cave in to it now. If the Court doesn't stand up for us, or even if they do and the next round of congressional whoring tries to cram corporate insurance down our throats by force with some other bullshit legislation, I'll resist it till the bitter end.

 

[Avatar4321]

I was actually waiting for this....

There aren't very many people in this country who can make it from cradle to grave without ever coming in contact with medical providers at some point. You can also choose not to live - but I'd withhold my recommendations for now.

So what your saying the choice accept your point of view or die?

Yeah cant imagine why people who love freedom disagree with you.

While your response doesn't surprise me much, this isn't my "point of view", it's just how things are. The statement was that we CAN'T be compelled to buy something, and I'm saying that we already ARE. You can agree or not - but that just isn't the point.

No. We aren't. We have choices.

 

[dblack]

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.

 

[oldernwiser]

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. Selling insurance IS NOT commerce per McCarron-Fergusson. 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.

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".

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.

 

[dblack]

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.