It looks bad for the Obamacare mandate

[boedicca]

Yesterday was a Great Day for Liberty.

In the most important appeal of the Obamacare constitutional saga, today was the best day yet for individual freedom. The government’s lawyer, Neal Katyal, spent most of the hearing on the ropes, with the judicial panel extremely cautious not to extend federal power beyond its present outer limits of regulating economic activity that has a substantial aggregate effect on interstate commerce.

As the lawyer representing 26 states against the federal government said, “The whole reason we do this is to protect liberty.” With those words, former solicitor general Paul Clement reached the essence of the Obamacare lawsuits. With apologies to Joe Biden, this is a big deal not because we’re dealing with a huge reorganization of the health care industry, but because our most fundamental first principle is at stake: we limit government power so people can live their lives the way they want.

This legal process is not an academic exercise to map the precise contours of the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause — or even to vindicate our commitment to federalism or judicial review. No, all of these worthy endeavors are just means to achieve the goal of maximizing human freedom and flourishing. Indeed, that is the very reason the government exists in the first place.

And the 11th Circuit judges saw that. Countless times, Judges Dubina and Marcus demanded that the government articulate constitutional limiting principles to the power it asserted. And countless times they pointed out that never in history has Congress tried to compel people to engage in commerce as a means of regulating commerce. Even Judge Hull, reputed to be the most liberal member of the panel, conducted a withering cross-examination to establish that the individual mandate didn’t help that many people get affordable care, that the majority of people currently without coverage would be exempt from the requirement (presumably due to their income level).

In short, while we should never read too much into an oral argument, I’m more optimistic about this case now than any other.


The Obamacare Lawsuit: From the Courtroom in Atlanta | Cato @ Liberty


Obama's team could not even answer the question as to what limits to government power would remain if the individual mandate is allowed to stand.

And that is The Issue.

 

[Skynet]

great one sided argument from a conservative....

 

[boedicca]

Oh goodie. Another knee jerk moonbat has joined the board.

Try reading The Constitution, bub. You might learn something.

 

[Skynet]

and youre a right wing nut job.

and the response the fed came up with to the individual mandate was actually this:

"Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was tapped by Republican President George H.W. Bush, struck early by asking the government's attorney "if we uphold the individual mandate in this case, are there any limits on Congressional power?" Circuit Judges Frank Hull and Stanley Marcus, who were tapped by Democratic President Bill Clinton, echoed his concerns later in the hearing.

Acting U.S. Solicitor Neal Katyal sought to ease their concerns by saying the legislative branch can only exercise its powers to regulate commerce if it will have a substantial effect on the economy and solve a national, not local, problem. Health care coverage, he said, is unique because of the billions of dollars shifted in the economy when Americans without coverage seek medical care.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/09/2258289/us-judges-raise-pointed-questions.html#ixzz1OnFJSP1j

 

[peach174]

It doesn't look good 3 against bill and 2 for it.
The bill is a stinker and it needs to go.

 

[Skynet]

It doesn't look good 3 against bill and 2 for it.
The bill is a stinker and it needs to go.

can you actually name any part of the bill you are against beside the mandate?

 

[peach174]

1st and foremost the cost to employer's and states.
2nd that a board will be making decisions about who will get what.
And the biggest is the cost in the future ,just like all of the social programs that have been around for over 25 or 30 years or more, it finally gets way to expensive.

 

[Skynet]

1st and foremost the cost to employer's and states.
2nd that a board will be making decisions about who will get what.
And the biggest is the cost in the future ,just like all of the social programs that have been around for over 25 or 30 years or more, it finally gets way to expensive.

there is no board that will be making medical decision, that is a fallacy. all medical decisions will be left to doctors and patients.

so other than that your more upset with the cost that anything actually in the bill such as...

covering children until age 26
no more pre existing condition exclusions
health care exchanges
making sure 80% of premium dollars goes towards patient care
not being able to raise rates on individuals, you have to raise the rates on the entire group


hmmmm interesting...

 

[Cuyo]

Commiecare is Bad News for America

Not as bad as dumb wannabe cowboys in assless chaps.

 

[Cuyo]

It will go to the SCOTUS regardless and providing that none of the Republicans on the court die between now and when it gets heard it will get struck down as unconstitutional and that will finally be the end of it.

Well that's certainly one of two possible outcomes.

 

[peach174]

Commiecare is Bad News for America

Not as bad as dumb wannabe cowboys in assless chaps.

You need glasses, his avie has jeans on, then the chaps.

 

[AllieBaba]

this issue of its constitutionality will most likely rest on the decision of health being determined to be interstate commerce or not. if it is determined to be interstate commerce, then under the commerce clause the federal government will have the authority to regulate it. there was also a judge who ruled for the mandate, finding that health insurance and health care not a voluntary product one chooses to use or not to choose, as every american at some point in their life will require medical care. this makes it unique in that by this definition it no longer a luxury but a necessity.

i think that there is an easy fix to this whole mandate problem, but its also a very fine line to walk and that is to offer medical waivers. this meaning that if you choose to not purchase health care insurance of any kind, you must a sign a waiver which states that you can and will be denied any and all medical care, even care during an emergency, without payment prior to treatment. and that you accept the risks associated with this even if this leads to permanent injury or even death. would you as an individual be willing to sign such a waiver knowing that you can denied care if you show up at a hospital? is this an acceptable solution to the problem?

No. Because it's essentially saying "We will not allow you to access medical care if you don't fall in line". Which is, of course, fascism.

 

[Skynet]

this issue of its constitutionality will most likely rest on the decision of health being determined to be interstate commerce or not. if it is determined to be interstate commerce, then under the commerce clause the federal government will have the authority to regulate it. there was also a judge who ruled for the mandate, finding that health insurance and health care not a voluntary product one chooses to use or not to choose, as every american at some point in their life will require medical care. this makes it unique in that by this definition it no longer a luxury but a necessity.

i think that there is an easy fix to this whole mandate problem, but its also a very fine line to walk and that is to offer medical waivers. this meaning that if you choose to not purchase health care insurance of any kind, you must a sign a waiver which states that you can and will be denied any and all medical care, even care during an emergency, without payment prior to treatment. and that you accept the risks associated with this even if this leads to permanent injury or even death. would you as an individual be willing to sign such a waiver knowing that you can denied care if you show up at a hospital? is this an acceptable solution to the problem?

No. Because it's essentially saying "We will not allow you to access medical care if you don't fall in line". Which is, of course, fascism.

no its actually forcing you to pay for the services to be rendered instead of pushing that cost back upon the people who actually do pay. or are you advocating that we should provide health care services to any and all regardless if they can actually pay for it?

 

[AllieBaba]

Currently it's against the law for docs to refuse care to those who need it.

I guess you'd have to change that law, along with the law saying it's okay to kill babies. So we'd have a law that makes it okay for doctors to withhold life saving treatment based on a person's political views, and a law that says it's not murder to kill babies, another law that says we can kill people who want to die or who can't voice an opinion....next will be laws that determine it's not illegal to kill people over a certain age (after all, it's not murder if they're UNDER a certain age, makes perfect sense!) or genetic makeup.

Sounds like a great world.

 

[Skynet]

Currently it's against the law for docs to refuse care to those who need it.

I guess you'd have to change that law, along with the law saying it's okay to kill babies. So we'd have a law that makes it okay for doctors to withhold life saving treatment based on a person's political views, and a law that says it's not murder to kill babies, another law that says we can kill people who want to die or who can't voice an opinion....next will be laws that determine it's not illegal to kill people over a certain age (after all, it's not murder if they're UNDER a certain age, makes perfect sense!) or genetic makeup.

Sounds like a great world.

so if a person cant pay who should get the bill?

and leave you abortion argument on the other thread, thats not the purpose of this one.

 

[AllieBaba]

Currently it's against the law for docs to refuse care to those who need it.

I guess you'd have to change that law, along with the law saying it's okay to kill babies. So we'd have a law that makes it okay for doctors to withhold life saving treatment based on a person's political views, and a law that says it's not murder to kill babies, another law that says we can kill people who want to die or who can't voice an opinion....next will be laws that determine it's not illegal to kill people over a certain age (after all, it's not murder if they're UNDER a certain age, makes perfect sense!) or genetic makeup.

Sounds like a great world.

so if a person cant pay who should get the bill?

and leave you abortion argument on the other thread, thats not the purpose of this one.

That has nothing to do with sentencing the sick to a death sentence if they refuse to sign up for obamacare.

And fuck you, you have no control over what I post. Killing people is the same, whether it's infants, or old people, or just people who refuse to sign up for commiecare.

It's exactly the same. A march towards pruning the population, punishing those who demand freedom and liberty, and killing off dissenters.

 

[Trajan]

To extrapolate an outcome predicated on one oral argument in one venue is naïve at best, ignorant at worst.

wow, thx !!!

 

[Skynet]

Currently it's against the law for docs to refuse care to those who need it.

I guess you'd have to change that law, along with the law saying it's okay to kill babies. So we'd have a law that makes it okay for doctors to withhold life saving treatment based on a person's political views, and a law that says it's not murder to kill babies, another law that says we can kill people who want to die or who can't voice an opinion....next will be laws that determine it's not illegal to kill people over a certain age (after all, it's not murder if they're UNDER a certain age, makes perfect sense!) or genetic makeup.

Sounds like a great world.

so if a person cant pay who should get the bill?

and leave you abortion argument on the other thread, thats not the purpose of this one.

That has nothing to do with sentencing the sick to a death sentence if they refuse to sign up for obamacare.

And fuck you, you have no control over what I post. Killing people is the same, whether it's infants, or old people, or just people who refuse to sign up for commiecare.

It's exactly the same. A march towards pruning the population, punishing those who demand freedom and liberty, and killing off dissenters.

well fuck you right back with your killing babies argument, someone should have aborted you. the world would be a much better place.

 

[AllieBaba]

Thank you for exposing yourself.

That was easy.

 

[boedicca]

this issue of its constitutionality will most likely rest on the decision of health being determined to be interstate commerce or not. if it is determined to be interstate commerce, then under the commerce clause the federal government will have the authority to regulate it. there was also a judge who ruled for the mandate, finding that health insurance and health care not a voluntary product one chooses to use or not to choose, as every american at some point in their life will require medical care. this makes it unique in that by this definition it no longer a luxury but a necessity.

i think that there is an easy fix to this whole mandate problem, but its also a very fine line to walk and that is to offer medical waivers. this meaning that if you choose to not purchase health care insurance of any kind, you must a sign a waiver which states that you can and will be denied any and all medical care, even care during an emergency, without payment prior to treatment. and that you accept the risks associated with this even if this leads to permanent injury or even death. would you as an individual be willing to sign such a waiver knowing that you can denied care if you show up at a hospital? is this an acceptable solution to the problem?

No. Because it's essentially saying "We will not allow you to access medical care if you don't fall in line". Which is, of course, fascism.

no its actually forcing you to pay for the services to be rendered instead of pushing that cost back upon the people who actually do pay. or are you advocating that we should provide health care services to any and all regardless if they can actually pay for it?

No it's not. It's forcing me to pay far more for theoretical services I may never use in violation of my liberty to decide how to spend my own resources.