Obamacare mandate is precedent setting, in a BIG way

[NYcarbineer]

I could, but you wouldn't understand it.

Which is forumspeak for 'I can't.'

Can ANYONE help manifold here? All I want to know is how can a federal law that is unconstitutional become a state law, performing the same function, that is constitutional?

First you need to understand the 10th amendment.

Then you'll need to read your state constitution to see what powers it grants the state government.

The tenth amendment does not allow states to infringe on constitutionally protected rights.

Somebody explain to me why this is different, that's all I'm asking.

 

[uscitizen]

So I guess the court ruling on Obamacare will kill privitization of SS as well then.

 

[Truthseeker420]

I thought this was obvious, but some apparently don't realize that a federal mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance is not only precedent setting, but completely blows out of the water the long established precedent that only state and local governments have that type of authority. You might think that it's no big deal to give this authority to the federal government too, but that's because you're stupid.

That's why we need a single payer system.

 

[Missourian]

The Tenth Amendment does not give states the right to force Americans to do something that has been ruled unconstitutional.

If it is my constitutional right not to be forced to buy health insurance, then that's my right. The state can't pass laws that violate my constitutional rights. They are protected by the Supremacy Clause.

Look, I'm not arguing here. I'm looking for a clear and concise explanation as to why I might be wrong.

Here is my understanding, and someone correct me if I'm wrong.

SCOTUS decides what is unconstitutional for the federal government.

It only weighs in on state law in special circumstances.

The STATE Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of state law and state government constitutionality as is applies to the STATE Constitution.

This is the Federalist system, as opposed to a unitary system where all the power rests with the central government.

If it's unconstitutional for the federal government to ban all gun ownership, because of the second amendment,

a state can't turn around and ban all gun ownership within the state can it?

Now you're talking about incorporation of the Bill of Rights via the 14th Amendment.

Up until Heller, and the incorporation of the 2nd amendment, a state COULD conceivably ban ownership of a gun within a state.

EDIT - Unless it's State Constitution contained a 2nd Amendment equivalent. But then it would have been deem unconstitutional under the state constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.

READ THIS on Incorporation.
​

 

[Missourian]

Which is forumspeak for 'I can't.'

Can ANYONE help manifold here? All I want to know is how can a federal law that is unconstitutional become a state law, performing the same function, that is constitutional?

First you need to understand the 10th amendment.

Then you'll need to read your state constitution to see what powers it grants the state government.

The tenth amendment does not allow states to infringe on constitutionally protected rights.

Somebody explain to me why this is different, that's all I'm asking.

Explained above...I edited it a little after the original posting.

But that doesn't change the fact that the U.S. Constitution grants enumerated powers to both the Federal Government and to the states.

And power that is not expressly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states or the people.

Therefore...it is unconstitutional, for example, for the federal government to conduct elections, as that power is expressly conferred to the states.

And it is unconstitutional for the states to establish post offices...because that power is expressly conferred to the federal government.

Here you go...read this...Federalism: National vs. State Government

 

[Seawytch]

Congress can regulate inter-state commerce. An uninsured person from Arkansas getting injured, without insurance, in Hawaii costs Hawaii, not the state in which they reside.

That's close to the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

give her time.

she'll exceed your expectations presently

Insults and ad hominems aren't an actual argument against what I said. My considerable tax dollars go to emergency rooms that treat the uninsured. The uninsured individuals that reside in my state pay those taxes too. Should someone who resides in my state end up in the emergency room, I am at least comforted by the fact that they have paid to support that care.

Some asshole from Texas (where they have the highest rate of uninsured) visiting my state does not support those emergency rooms with their tax dollars. My state gets screwed because that Texas asshole doesn't have insurance.

“where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.” ~ Justice Scalia US Supreme Court

The Affordable Care Act regulates the Health Insurance market. Without the mandate, it isn't effective.

 

[Too Tall]

That is exactly what I mean and with our tax issues, they would be able to charge you $25,000/year for family coverage, hell they could do it for single coverage, and there would not be a damned thing you could do about it.

Obviously, I do not support the public option because we would have no control over our ONE option.

Immie

You seemed to have confused what the public option is exactly. The public option would not be the only option available. If the government decides to have coverage at such a price, then you can clearly go ahead and get your insurance from a private insurance company.

Universal Health Care in some form has clearly worked in other countries. I think there is a number of policies that has worked in other countries that we should be trying here.

Is that why so many Canadians come to the US for surgery and other urgent treatment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here is my understanding, and someone correct me if I'm wrong.

SCOTUS decides what is unconstitutional for the federal government.

It only weighs in on state law in special circumstances.

The STATE Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of state law and state government constitutionality as is applies to the STATE Constitution.

This is the Federalist system, as opposed to a unitary system where all the power rests with the central government.

If it's unconstitutional for the federal government to ban all gun ownership, because of the second amendment,

a state can't turn around and ban all gun ownership within the state can it?

Now you're talking about incorporation of the Bill of Rights via the 14th Amendment.

Up until Heller, and the incorporation of the 2nd amendment, a state COULD conceivably ban ownership of a gun within a state.

EDIT - Unless it's State Constitution contained a 2nd Amendment equivalent. But then it would have been deem unconstitutional under the state constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.

READ THIS on Incorporation.
​

What you linked to appears to me to generally affirm the idea that rights protected by the Constitution are protected from state as well as federal laws that would infringe on them.

That concept seems obvious to me.

I'm also curious as to why conservatives seem so adamantly supportive of the idea that a state government could mandate health insurance. You don't want one government to be able to infringe on your 'liberty', but you'll happily let another one do so?

It doesn't make any sense.

 

[manifold]

The mandate is not a civil rights infringement.

What some retards don't understand is that civil rights infringements are not the only federal laws that can be deemed unconstitutional. A law, such as this, can also be deemed unconstitutional if the federal government is overstepping it's constitutional authority.

Several judges have already ruled as such, which is why this is headed to the Supreme Court. Go read just one of the decisions if you don't believe me. Or keep acting like an ignorant fucking douchebag, it seems that's more your speed anyway.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I see the SC throwing the mandate out and allowing states the liberty of opting in or out of the bill.

 

[NYcarbineer]

First you need to understand the 10th amendment.

Then you'll need to read your state constitution to see what powers it grants the state government.

The tenth amendment does not allow states to infringe on constitutionally protected rights.

Somebody explain to me why this is different, that's all I'm asking.

Explained above...I edited it a little after the original posting.

But that doesn't change the fact that the U.S. Constitution grants enumerated powers to both the Federal Government and to the states.

And power that is not expressly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states or the people.

Therefore...it is unconstitutional, for example, for the federal government to conduct elections, as that power is expressly conferred to the states.

And it is unconstitutional for the states to establish post offices...because that power is expressly conferred to the federal government.

Here you go...read this...Federalism: National vs. State Government

We're talking about an infringement here. To use your example, states have the power to conduct elections, but they don't have the power to conduct elections in violation of federal and constitutional law regarding, for example, voting rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The mandate is not a civil rights infringement.

What some retards don't understand is that civil rights infringements are not the only federal laws that can be deemed unconstitutional. A law, such as this, can also be deemed unconstitutional if the federal government is overstepping it's constitutional authority.

Several judges have already ruled as such, which is why this is headed to the Supreme Court. Go read just one of the decisions if you don't believe me. Or keep acting like an ignorant fucking douchebag, it seems that's more your speed anyway.

The adults are talking. Shut up and go eat your cereal, laddie. You had your chance in this thread.

 

[manifold]

The mandate is not a civil rights infringement.

What some retards don't understand is that civil rights infringements are not the only federal laws that can be deemed unconstitutional. A law, such as this, can also be deemed unconstitutional if the federal government is overstepping it's constitutional authority.

Several judges have already ruled as such, which is why this is headed to the Supreme Court. Go read just one of the decisions if you don't believe me. Or keep acting like an ignorant fucking douchebag, it seems that's more your speed anyway.

The adults are talking. Shut up and go eat your cereal, laddie. You had your chance in this thread.

^forumspeak for I just got pwned.

 

[Too Tall]

That's close to the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

give her time.

she'll exceed your expectations presently

Insults and ad hominems aren't an actual argument against what I said. My considerable tax dollars go to emergency rooms that treat the uninsured. The uninsured individuals that reside in my state pay those taxes too. Should someone who resides in my state end up in the emergency room, I am at least comforted by the fact that they have paid to support that care.

Some asshole from Texas (where they have the highest rate of uninsured) visiting my state does not support those emergency rooms with their tax dollars. My state gets screwed because that Texas asshole doesn't have insurance.

“where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.” ~ Justice Scalia US Supreme Court

The Affordable Care Act regulates the Health Insurance market. Without the mandate, it isn't effective.

If some asshole from your state goes to Texas and goes to the emergency room, Texas taxpayers get screwed.

What's the problem?

 

[California Girl]

I dont see how what other countries do is germane to this debate.

It's not, because we are a unique country - with a Constitution. However, we can - and should - learn from other countries. I have lost count of the times that some fool has held Britain up as a shining example of a 'universal' health care system. Only problem is I know their system much better than most Americans... a shining example it most definitely is not.

 

[Seawytch]

That is exactly what I mean and with our tax issues, they would be able to charge you $25,000/year for family coverage, hell they could do it for single coverage, and there would not be a damned thing you could do about it.

Obviously, I do not support the public option because we would have no control over our ONE option.

Immie

You seemed to have confused what the public option is exactly. The public option would not be the only option available. If the government decides to have coverage at such a price, then you can clearly go ahead and get your insurance from a private insurance company.

Universal Health Care in some form has clearly worked in other countries. I think there is a number of policies that has worked in other countries that we should be trying here.

Is that why so many Canadians come to the US for surgery and other urgent treatment?

If you got your information somewhere other than Hannity, you would know that is a falsehood.

Phantoms In The Snow: Canadians’ Use Of Health Care Services In The United States

1) First, they surveyed United States border facilities in Michigan, New York, and Washington. It makes sense that Canadians crossing the border for care would favor sites close by, right? It turns out that about 80% of such facilities saw fewer than one Canadian per month. About 40% saw none in the prior year. And when looking at the reasons for visits, more than 80% were emergencies or urgent visits (ie tourists who had to go to the ER). Only about 19% of those already few visits were for elective purposes.

2) Next, they surveyed “America’s Best Hospitals”, because if Canadians were going to travel for care, they would be more likely to go to the most well-known and highest quality facilities, right? Only one of the surveyed hospitals saw more than 60 Canadians in one year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care.

3) Finally, they examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, only 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them had done so electively.​

 

[Seawytch]

give her time.

she'll exceed your expectations presently

Insults and ad hominems aren't an actual argument against what I said. My considerable tax dollars go to emergency rooms that treat the uninsured. The uninsured individuals that reside in my state pay those taxes too. Should someone who resides in my state end up in the emergency room, I am at least comforted by the fact that they have paid to support that care.

Some asshole from Texas (where they have the highest rate of uninsured) visiting my state does not support those emergency rooms with their tax dollars. My state gets screwed because that Texas asshole doesn't have insurance.

“where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.” ~ Justice Scalia US Supreme Court

The Affordable Care Act regulates the Health Insurance market. Without the mandate, it isn't effective.

If some asshole from your state goes to Texas and goes to the emergency room, Texas taxpayers get screwed.

What's the problem?

Awesome! Thanks for backing up my point so eloquently!

 

[manifold]

Insults and ad hominems aren't an actual argument against what I said. My considerable tax dollars go to emergency rooms that treat the uninsured. The uninsured individuals that reside in my state pay those taxes too. Should someone who resides in my state end up in the emergency room, I am at least comforted by the fact that they have paid to support that care.

Some asshole from Texas (where they have the highest rate of uninsured) visiting my state does not support those emergency rooms with their tax dollars. My state gets screwed because that Texas asshole doesn't have insurance.

“where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.” ~ Justice Scalia US Supreme Court

The Affordable Care Act regulates the Health Insurance market. Without the mandate, it isn't effective.

If some asshole from your state goes to Texas and goes to the emergency room, Texas taxpayers get screwed.

What's the problem?

Awesome! Thanks for backing up my point so eloquently!

Your point is as sharp as a bowling ball.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The mandate is not a civil rights infringement.
What some retards don't understand is that civil rights infringements are not the only federal laws that can be deemed unconstitutional. A law, such as this, can also be deemed unconstitutional if the federal government is overstepping it's constitutional authority.

Several judges have already ruled as such, which is why this is headed to the Supreme Court. Go read just one of the decisions if you don't believe me. Or keep acting like an ignorant fucking douchebag, it seems that's more your speed anyway.

The adults are talking. Shut up and go eat your cereal, laddie. You had your chance in this thread.

^forumspeak for I just got pwned.

Hmm, let's take a look at this statement, and compare it to the highlighted above:

A lot of people seem to have especially strong opposition to requiring people to carry health insurance. Opposition based on principal I understand. It's just one more governmental encroachment on individual liberty.

Who said that? YOU did, in 2009.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/94380-compulsory-health-insurance-5.html

So when did you change your mind?

 

[Ravi]

I thought this was obvious, but some apparently don't realize that a federal mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance is not only precedent setting, but completely blows out of the water the long established precedent that only state and local governments have that type of authority. You might think that it's no big deal to give this authority to the federal government too, but that's because you're stupid.

If you don't get it, you pay a tax penalty.

Last time I checked tax penalties were legal.