Individual mandate in trouble?

[Polk]

Did you really just use that as your justification?

Insurance is a mehcanism to pay for health care coverage.

The insurance is not legally sold across state lines therefore the govt has no pervue to regulate it under the interstate commerce clause.

It doesn't matter that policies aren't sold across state lines. The company's tailor their products to form to local requirements. The companies themselves (Anthem, United, Kaiser Permanente) are all national firms.

1) It does matter because if you aren't selling the product across state lines, also known as conducting interstate commerce, then the congress has no authority to regulate it under the interstate commerce laws.

2) My insurance company is 100% in Massachussettes, why should congress be able to regulate me under the interstate commerce clause if my company is based here, only sells policies here, my doctors are here, and I don't leave the state for health care?

Except that the policies are interstate commerce. Conforming to local requirements doesn't change the fact that than a Connecticut firm is selling policies in Maine and Minnesota.

I believe you've said previously that Aetna is your ensurer. Aetna is based in Connecticut.

 

[Polk]

Don't forget the law states that it is currently illegal for Health Insurance to be sold across state lines, which destroys the "interstate commerce clause" arguments.

You can get an Aetna policy anywhere in the country, it just has to comply with the laws and regulations of the state where it's sold.

As a massachussettes resident I can not buy an Aetna policy from another state, it is illegal to do so under the law.

Hence no interstate commerce.

You are really, really, REALLY misunderstanding what interstate commerce is.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

You are really, really, REALLY misunderstanding what interstate commerce is.

Periodically, the SCOTUS seems to have trouble with the concept, too.

But for giggles and shits, let's take a quick short-cut.

Acts Constituting Commerce

Whether any transaction constitutes interstate or intrastate commerce depends on the essential character of what is done and the surrounding circumstances. The courts take a commonsense [sic] approach in examining the established course of business in order to distinguish where interstate commerce ends and local commerce begins. If activities that are intrastate in character have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce that their control is essential to protect commerce from being burdened, Congress may not be denied the power to exercise that control.

In 1995, for the first time in nearly 60 years, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress had exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce. In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1995), the Court ruled 5–4 that Congress had exceeded its Commerce Clause power in enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C.A. § 921), which prohibited the possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school.

In reaching its decision, the Court took the various tests used throughout the history of the Commerce Clause to determine whether a federal statute is constitutional, and incorporated them into a new standard that specifies three categories of activity that Congress may regulate under the clause: (1) the channels of interstate commerce, (2) persons or things in interstate commerce or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and (3) activities that have "a substantial relation to interstate commerce … i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce."

-- Commerce Clause legal definition of Commerce Clause. Commerce Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

And as can be accurately said of lots of different things from time to time:

the law is in a state of flux.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It doesn't matter that policies aren't sold across state lines. The company's tailor their products to form to local requirements. The companies themselves (Anthem, United, Kaiser Permanente) are all national firms.

1) It does matter because if you aren't selling the product across state lines, also known as conducting interstate commerce, then the congress has no authority to regulate it under the interstate commerce laws.

2) My insurance company is 100% in Massachussettes, why should congress be able to regulate me under the interstate commerce clause if my company is based here, only sells policies here, my doctors are here, and I don't leave the state for health care?

Except that the policies are interstate commerce. Conforming to local requirements doesn't change the fact that than a Connecticut firm is selling policies in Maine and Minnesota.

I believe you've said previously that Aetna is your ensurer. Aetna is based in Connecticut.

It is Illegal for companies to sell policies across state lines AKA interstate.

how do you reconcile that?

Whether any transaction constitutes interstate or intrastate commerce depends on the essential character of what is done and the surrounding circumstances. The courts take a commonsense [sic] approach in examining the established course of business in order to distinguish where interstate commerce ends and local commerce begins. If activities that are intrastate in character have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce that their control is essential to protect commerce from being burdened, Congress may not be denied the power to exercise that control.

In 1995, for the first time in nearly 60 years, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress had exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce. In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1995), the Court ruled 5–4 that Congress had exceeded its Commerce Clause power in enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C.A. § 921), which prohibited the possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school.

In reaching its decision, the Court took the various tests used throughout the history of the Commerce Clause to determine whether a federal statute is constitutional, and incorporated them into a new standard that specifies three categories of activity that Congress may regulate under the clause: (1) the channels of interstate commerce, (2) persons or things in interstate commerce or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and (3) activities that have "a substantial relation to interstate commerce … i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce."

How does health insurance fall into that?

 

[Katzndogz]

I doubt that would be a good direction for him to go. Most would see right through that. It's hard to shake the term, Obamacare.

It's exactly what they're trying to pivot to. Yesterday the whitehouse announced that this was a bipartisan bill founded in the gops belief of individual responsibility when they were questioned about the mandate.

It's like gradeschool all over again with this bunch.

It was a lie that started with nancy pelosi because she got one GOP member from LA to vote for it. One GOP member (who lost his seat in 2010) does not make it bipartisan.

Do you have a link? It was my understanding that not one single republican voted on it, by design so that democrats would own this totally. When obama refers to the bill being bipartisan what he is referring to is the basis being Romenycare.

 

[Katzndogz]

Doesn't it bother you that no one who voted on the bill read it? That's even more troubling since the legislators made the decision in the first place.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's exactly what they're trying to pivot to. Yesterday the whitehouse announced that this was a bipartisan bill founded in the gops belief of individual responsibility when they were questioned about the mandate.

It's like gradeschool all over again with this bunch.

It was a lie that started with nancy pelosi because she got one GOP member from LA to vote for it. One GOP member (who lost his seat in 2010) does not make it bipartisan.

Do you have a link? It was my understanding that not one single republican voted on it, by design so that democrats would own this totally. When obama refers to the bill being bipartisan what he is referring to is the basis being Romenycare.

Interesting how the people who whined and cried about the GOP being "The Party of No" because of their opposition to Obamacare are now trying to give the GOP credit for its creation.

Liberal dishonesty knows no bounds.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's exactly what they're trying to pivot to. Yesterday the whitehouse announced that this was a bipartisan bill founded in the gops belief of individual responsibility when they were questioned about the mandate.

It's like gradeschool all over again with this bunch.

It was a lie that started with nancy pelosi because she got one GOP member from LA to vote for it. One GOP member (who lost his seat in 2010) does not make it bipartisan.

Do you have a link? It was my understanding that not one single republican voted on it, by design so that democrats would own this totally. When obama refers to the bill being bipartisan what he is referring to is the basis being Romenycare.

OK, I was not wholly correct:

Cao was the only Republican to vote for the draft Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) on November 7, 2009.[52][53] Yet Cao, because of concerns of alleged public funding for elective abortion provisions, joined the rest of his party in opposing the final version, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. [2]

Joseph Cao - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was remembering Pelosi saying it was bipartisan but that was only one vote. The next vote he went the other way.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You can get an Aetna policy anywhere in the country, it just has to comply with the laws and regulations of the state where it's sold.

As a massachussettes resident I can not buy an Aetna policy from another state, it is illegal to do so under the law.

Hence no interstate commerce.

You are really, really, REALLY misunderstanding what interstate commerce is.

in 1789 the interesate commerce clause was there to let the Feds promote free trade between states, then it was broadly used for general regulation of all kinds on the assumption that all commerce was interstate directly or indirectly. Now thanks to ACA the tide may be turning back toward the intended Republican conservative use.

 

[Katzndogz]

I moved from California to Nevada and back. I kept the same insurance company BUT when I moved, my policy was cancelled and I had to get a new polilcy in the new state both times. So insurance policies are not sold in interstate commerce as the policies are not portable. To all intents and purposes it could have been separate insurance companies.

 

[Sarah G]

Doesn't it bother you that no one who voted on the bill read it? That's even more troubling since the legislators made the decision in the first place.

You don't know that, talking point king.

 

[The Rabbi]

Doesn't it bother you that no one who voted on the bill read it? That's even more troubling since the legislators made the decision in the first place.

You don't know that, talking point king.

Wrong. Do you ever reconsider your entire view of the world since you're wrong so often?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7mOaPnYYA]Congressman John Conyers: "Why Read The Bill?" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Doesn't it bother you that no one who voted on the bill read it? That's even more troubling since the legislators made the decision in the first place.

You don't know that, talking point king.

Wrong. Do you ever reconsider your entire view of the world since you're wrong so often?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7mOaPnYYA]Congressman John Conyers: "Why Read The Bill?" - YouTube[/ame]

There were many who voted for it that were the same way.

Hell even Pelosi said

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU]Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Liability]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU&feature=player_embedded]Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" - YouTube[/ame]

A Pelousy hall of shame all time winner.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" - YouTube

A Pelousy hall of shame all time winner.

In other countries that would earn her a Darwin award

 

[Foxfyre]

I apologize for not reading all 33 pages that this thread has already generated--I did read the OP and a good sampling of the discussion--and I apologize if these points have already been made.

It has been remarkable to me how many of the Democrats and pro-left media icons are now scrambling to distance themselves from Obamacare. And, of course, if SCOTUS rules in favor of all of Obamacare, that won't stop them from again proclaiming vindication in their earlier support. What a bunch of wusses.

The other phenomenon is the new talking point--and we're seeing it put out there again and again and again--that it will be a GOOD thing for Obama if Obamacare crashes and burns in the SCOTUS ruling. He will then no longer be blamed for it and can get on with his campaign unemcumbered by it.

It makes a person just shake his or her head, stuff hands in pockets, and wander off muttering.