SCOTUS/Healthcare: For those of you who want a sneak peak of the Oral Arguments.

[Publius1787]

SCOTUS/Healthcare: For those of you who want a sneak peak of the Oral Arguments.


AUDIO FOR THE ANTI INJUNCTION ACT HEARD ON 3/26/2012 BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT CAN BE FOUND HERE




1. This played on CSPAN yesterday morning and was very informative. It’s a debate between many lawyers who’ve argued the ACA on both sides. ( Supreme Court Health Care Argument Preview - C-SPAN Video Library )

2. For those of you who want more mock trials and debates you can see the videos on this thread ( http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...e-and-a-preview-of-the-arguments-to-come.html ). Each of them is a separate debate among some of the greatest constitutional legal minds.

3. For those of you who want to hear the oral arguments as soon as they are available, or wish to read all of the briefs and listen to all of the previous arguments, you can go here ( The Court and Health Care Reform | Oyez Today ).


The following video is of Paul D. Clement among others who have argued for and against the ACA. Paul D. Clement will argue the case tommarrow before the Supreme Court.







Paul D. Clement .................................................................................................................... Donald Verrilli Jr.
The States .................................................................................................................... The Obama Administration
Paul Clement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ..................................... Donald Verrilli Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

.............................................................................................

.

 

[saveliberty]

The burden of forcing people to buy something under government decree is grounds enough. Penalizing them for not buying is further injury.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I can't wait untill it's over turned!

 

[code1211]

I'm terrified that the SCOTUS will not overturn this and it will be the modern equivalent of Crossing the Rubicon.

 

[Neotrotsky]

One has to wonder if Papa Obama now realizes that
it might not have been a good idea to try and publicly criticize the SCOTUS
at his State of the Union address. Besides being improper and lacking any class,
it served him no purpose to publicly humiliate them.


Something tells me that his narcissistic personality won't allow him to see
what a stupid idea this was now

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KMKD1Mi8o0]Alito Shakes Head When Obama Criticizes Campaign Finance Decision - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

Paul D. Clement .................................................................................................................... Donald Verrilli Jr.
The States .................................................................................................................... The Obama Administration
Paul Clement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ..................................... Donald Verrilli Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

.............................................................................................

.

Geex look at the resumes of each of these guys. Clement is 4 years younger than me and an obvious whiz kid, top of everything. Verilli is an also-ran who was very much a political appointment and barely squeaked by through a closure motion.
Clement will wipe the floor with Verilii, who is out of his league.

 

[Publius1787]

Paul D. Clement .................................................................................................................... Donald Verrilli Jr.
The States .................................................................................................................... The Obama Administration
Paul Clement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ..................................... Donald Verrilli Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


.

Geex look at the resumes of each of these guys. Clement is 4 years younger than me and an obvious whiz kid, top of everything. Verilli is an also-ran who was very much a political appointment and barely squeaked by through a closure motion.
Clement will wipe the floor with Verilii, who is out of his league.

No one, to include his ideologicly opposing colleagues, doubts that Clement is possibly the best lawyer to argue before the Supreme Court in modern history. However, the arguments really don’t matter. His brief, however, certainly does. There is no doubt in my mind that the SCOTUS has already made up their minds after reading all those briefs. If there is any ambiguity it is unlikely not to be answered in oral arguments. For example, the Obama Administration can think of no limiting principle for the commerce clause. Good luck with that before the court. They will most certainly ask for one as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I'd never argue against oral. I think it's pretty good myself...

 

[Vidi]

It's not going to be overturned.

49 states force drivers to purchase auto insurance ( New Hampshire being the lone exception ).

If that is Constitutional, then so is the health insurance mandate.

 

[Publius1787]

It's not going to be overturned.

49 states force drivers to purchase auto insurance ( New Hampshire being the lone exception ).

If that is Constitutional, then so is the health insurance mandate.

49 states do not require that you purchase car insurance as a condition of living. They require you purchase it in order to drive a car on state and federal roads AFTER you CHOSE to enter in to the automobile market. And remember, it’s the states that have the constitutional authority of the police power that require that you have insurance, not so much the federal government. Nonetheless, they don’t require car insurance for driving on private property, nor do they require it for riding a bus, walking, riding a bike, etc... If you’re justifying the healthcare law with car insurance you need to change your equivocation a bit. You need to concede that federal the government has the constitutional authority to force you to enter in to the car market, when you had no intention of doing so, so they can then tell you to buy car insurance to shift the cost from those poor souls with preexisting accidents, speeding tickets, and high insurance costs.

 

[Vidi]

One has to wonder if Papa Obama now realizes that
it might not have been a good idea to try and publicly criticize the SCOTUS
at his State of the Union address. Besides being improper and lacking any class,
it served him no purpose to publicly humiliate them.


Something tells me that his narcissistic personality won't allow him to see
what a stupid idea this was now

Alito Shakes Head When Obama Criticizes Campaign Finance Decision - YouTube

That's really funny considering:

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate

This came up at Tuesday’s Western Republican Leadership Conference Debate, where Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich tussled on the question:

ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

ROMNEY: OK.

The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".

Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage’s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal “quality, affordable health care.”

The individual mandate was an attempt to beat Democrats at the universal coverage game and preempt the what would become HillaryCare. Medicare’s prescription drug benefit was passed by a Republican president and a Republican Congress under the pretense that if they didn’t do it, Democrats would, and it would be worse. In the debate over ObamaCare, Republicans spent more energy arguing against the law’s Medicare payment cuts than any other part of the law.

 

[Publius1787]

One has to wonder if Papa Obama now realizes that
it might not have been a good idea to try and publicly criticize the SCOTUS
at his State of the Union address. Besides being improper and lacking any class,
it served him no purpose to publicly humiliate them.


Something tells me that his narcissistic personality won't allow him to see
what a stupid idea this was now

Alito Shakes Head When Obama Criticizes Campaign Finance Decision - YouTube

That's really funny considering:

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate

This came up at Tuesday’s Western Republican Leadership Conference Debate, where Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich tussled on the question:

ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

ROMNEY: OK.

The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".

Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage’s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal “quality, affordable health care.”

The individual mandate was an attempt to beat Democrats at the universal coverage game and preempt the what would become HillaryCare. Medicare’s prescription drug benefit was passed by a Republican president and a Republican Congress under the pretense that if they didn’t do it, Democrats would, and it would be worse. In the debate over ObamaCare, Republicans spent more energy arguing against the law’s Medicare payment cuts than any other part of the law.

Hypocritical moral equivocation has nothing to do with constitutionality and is therefore a moot point for anyone who brings it to the discussion. At least that’s what the Obama Administration is arguing about the penalty, uh ... mandate, …… uh ...... "tax." That’s right, it’s a tax! It wasn’t yesterday but it is today! Remember that he hasn't raised taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. In fact, he’s the first president to install a tax on doing nothing that applies exclusively to the middle class. Or is it a penalty ...... or a mandate ........ ?

 

[Vidi]

It's not going to be overturned.

49 states force drivers to purchase auto insurance ( New Hampshire being the lone exception ).

If that is Constitutional, then so is the health insurance mandate.

49 states do not require that you purchase car insurance as a condition of living. They require you purchase it in order to drive a car on state and federal roads AFTER you CHOSE to enter in to the automobile market. And remember, it’s the states that have the constitutional authority of the police power that require that you have insurance, not so much the federal government. Nonetheless, they don’t require car insurance for driving on private property, nor do they require one for riding a bus, walking, riding a bike, etc... If you’re justifying the healthcare law with car insurance you need to change your equivocation a bit. You need to concede that federal the government has the constitutional authority to force you to enter in to the car market, when you had no intention of doing so, so they can then tell you to buy car insurance to shift the cost from those poor souls with preexisting accidents, and therfore, high insurance costs.

You make an excellent point. However, I do not equate the two as exact matches, but as historical precedent in which the state has been able to force purchase of a product ( insurance ) in the interest of the general welfare, as one is not purchasing liability insurance to protect ones own interests, but the interest of others. The individual mandate, as proposed by the Conservatives, is there to protect the taxpayer from the burden of unpaid medical bills. Therefore, as both are forced in the interest of others, they are equatable in that sense.

Personally, I find them both to be a breach on our liberties.

 

[Publius1787]

It's not going to be overturned.

49 states force drivers to purchase auto insurance ( New Hampshire being the lone exception ).

If that is Constitutional, then so is the health insurance mandate.

49 states do not require that you purchase car insurance as a condition of living. They require you purchase it in order to drive a car on state and federal roads AFTER you CHOSE to enter in to the automobile market. And remember, it’s the states that have the constitutional authority of the police power that require that you have insurance, not so much the federal government. Nonetheless, they don’t require car insurance for driving on private property, nor do they require one for riding a bus, walking, riding a bike, etc... If you’re justifying the healthcare law with car insurance you need to change your equivocation a bit. You need to concede that federal the government has the constitutional authority to force you to enter in to the car market, when you had no intention of doing so, so they can then tell you to buy car insurance to shift the cost from those poor souls with preexisting accidents, and therfore, high insurance costs.

You make an excellent point. However, I do not equate the two as exact matches, but as historical precedent in which the state has been able to force purchase of a product ( insurance ) in the interest of the general welfare, as one is not purchasing liability insurance to protect ones own interests, but the interest of others. The individual mandate, as proposed by the Conservatives, is there to protect the taxpayer from the burden of unpaid medical bills. Therefore, as both are forced in the interest of others, they are equatable in that sense.

Personally, I find them both to be a breach on our liberties.

Yes, the government made a market failure when it made a law that stated that no one could be turned away as a condition of their inability to pay. The hospitals this applies to are already in the act of commerce. So to fix that market failure they unconstitutionally force us to pay for a good/service as a condition of living and breathing while not planning to engage in commerce. The fact that one exists doesn’t make the other magically constitutional. The fact that they made a bad law, or an unworkable one, does not give them the authority to make an unconstitutional one. And the fact that they can regulate interstate commerce does not grant them the authority to force us to enter in to commerce. If they can, what is the limiting principle of the commerce clause? The Obama Administration is arguing that there isn’t one. The Obama Administration is not arguing "general welfare" for reasons that would take to long for me to explain to you. Unknown by many the SCOTUS has put limitations on, and merged the, "general welfare" excuse.

 

[Vidi]

49 states do not require that you purchase car insurance as a condition of living. They require you purchase it in order to drive a car on state and federal roads AFTER you CHOSE to enter in to the automobile market. And remember, it’s the states that have the constitutional authority of the police power that require that you have insurance, not so much the federal government. Nonetheless, they don’t require car insurance for driving on private property, nor do they require one for riding a bus, walking, riding a bike, etc... If you’re justifying the healthcare law with car insurance you need to change your equivocation a bit. You need to concede that federal the government has the constitutional authority to force you to enter in to the car market, when you had no intention of doing so, so they can then tell you to buy car insurance to shift the cost from those poor souls with preexisting accidents, and therfore, high insurance costs.

You make an excellent point. However, I do not equate the two as exact matches, but as historical precedent in which the state has been able to force purchase of a product ( insurance ) in the interest of the general welfare, as one is not purchasing liability insurance to protect ones own interests, but the interest of others. The individual mandate, as proposed by the Conservatives, is there to protect the taxpayer from the burden of unpaid medical bills. Therefore, as both are forced in the interest of others, they are equatable in that sense.

Personally, I find them both to be a breach on our liberties.

Yes, the government made a market failure when it made a law that stated that no one could be turned away as a condition of their inability to pay. The hospitals this applies to are already in the act of commerce. So to fix that market failure they unconstitutionally force us to pay for a good/service as a condition of living and breathing while not planning to engage in commerce. The fact that one exists doesn’t make the other magically constitutional. The fact that they made a bad law, or an unworkable one, does not give them the authority to make an unconstitutional one. And the fact that they can regulate interstate commerce does not grant them the authority to force us to enter in to commerce. If they can, what is the limiting principle of the commerce clause? The Obama Administration is arguing that there isn’t one. The Obama Administration is not arguing "general welfare" for reasons that would take to long for me to explain to you. Unknown by many the SCOTUS has put limitations on, and merged the, "general welfare" excuse.

Again, good point.

But a few questions:

Can you cite examples of how SCOTUS has put limitations on "General Welfare"?

Are these limitations/mergings for this case alone? Or preceding?

It's been my understanding that United States vs Butler, 1936, in which SCOTUS struck down portions of FDRs New Deal, gave Congress the discretion to define "General Welfare".

And if Congress alone has that power, then, it seems to me, a non lawyer, making that argument seems rather important to the case for the mandate being Constitutional.

Thoughts?

 

[Vidi]

One has to wonder if Papa Obama now realizes that
it might not have been a good idea to try and publicly criticize the SCOTUS
at his State of the Union address. Besides being improper and lacking any class,
it served him no purpose to publicly humiliate them.


Something tells me that his narcissistic personality won't allow him to see
what a stupid idea this was now

Alito Shakes Head When Obama Criticizes Campaign Finance Decision - YouTube

That's really funny considering:

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate

Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage’s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal “quality, affordable health care.”

The individual mandate was an attempt to beat Democrats at the universal coverage game and preempt the what would become HillaryCare. Medicare’s prescription drug benefit was passed by a Republican president and a Republican Congress under the pretense that if they didn’t do it, Democrats would, and it would be worse. In the debate over ObamaCare, Republicans spent more energy arguing against the law’s Medicare payment cuts than any other part of the law.

Hypocritical moral equivocation has nothing to do with constitutionality and is therefore a moot point for anyone who brings it to the discussion. At least that’s what the Obama Administration is arguing about the penalty, uh ... mandate, …… uh ...... "tax." That’s right, it’s a tax! It wasn’t yesterday but it is today! Remember that he hasn't raised taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. In fact, he’s the first president to install a tax on doing nothing that applies exclusively to the middle class. Or is it a penalty ...... or a mandate ........ ?

I don't agree. If you're employed and receive Health Insurance though your employer, you've already purchased and therefore the mandate forces nothing on you. ( you being used in the general sense, not specifically you )

That being said however, the mandate does place an incredible burden in the cracks, like the midde class self employed.

The 80-85% payout is, in theory, supposed to drive costs down ( my wife's company is already planning a premium decrease for next year because of it ) but in MOST cases, in the best case scenario, that payout will take three to five years to force the majority of premiums down, which leaves several years where it would be cheaper for some to simply pay the fine.

 

[Publius1787]

You make an excellent point. However, I do not equate the two as exact matches, but as historical precedent in which the state has been able to force purchase of a product ( insurance ) in the interest of the general welfare, as one is not purchasing liability insurance to protect ones own interests, but the interest of others. The individual mandate, as proposed by the Conservatives, is there to protect the taxpayer from the burden of unpaid medical bills. Therefore, as both are forced in the interest of others, they are equatable in that sense.

Personally, I find them both to be a breach on our liberties.

Yes, the government made a market failure when it made a law that stated that no one could be turned away as a condition of their inability to pay. The hospitals this applies to are already in the act of commerce. So to fix that market failure they unconstitutionally force us to pay for a good/service as a condition of living and breathing while not planning to engage in commerce. The fact that one exists doesn’t make the other magically constitutional. The fact that they made a bad law, or an unworkable one, does not give them the authority to make an unconstitutional one. And the fact that they can regulate interstate commerce does not grant them the authority to force us to enter in to commerce. If they can, what is the limiting principle of the commerce clause? The Obama Administration is arguing that there isn’t one. The Obama Administration is not arguing "general welfare" for reasons that would take to long for me to explain to you. Unknown by many the SCOTUS has put limitations on, and merged the, "general welfare" excuse.

Again, good point.

But a few questions:

Can you cite examples of how SCOTUS has put limitations on "General Welfare"?

Are these limitations/mergings for this case alone? Or preceding?

It's been my understanding that United States vs Butler, 1936, in which SCOTUS struck down portions of FDRs New Deal, gave Congress the discretion to define "General Welfare".

And if Congress alone has that power, then, it seems to me, a non lawyer, making that argument seems rather important to the case for the mandate being Constitutional.

Thoughts?

I am currently writing a book on this very subject! To answer that question you need to know the step by step history of that clause starting with the ideological origins of the constitution to the Articles, to Federalist 41 and then to the first debate on the subject in Hamilton’s "Constitutionality of the National Bank" which must be read about 5 times to truly appreciate the beauty and far reaching fallacy of Hamilton’s reasoning that “necessary and proper” actually means “covenant and useful.” In short, the General Welfare "clause" has always been a limitation and merged in with the enumerated powers even after Hamilton’s theory has been far expanded by those not content with constitutionally limited governance.

The law is not general in nature like Social Security but specific. Therefore, it does not apply and the government concedes this point. There are more cases in the 80’s that limit the general welfare clause. They are complicated and I do not wish to explain it for that reason. All you need to know now is that the Obama Administration is not arguing it for that very purpose. It does not apply. And trust me, if they thought it would add merit to their argument they would have used it. But they aren’t. They wouldn’t throw away a tool that could perhaps secure themselves victory. They are, however, arguing the taxing power.

 

[Publius1787]

That's really funny considering:

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate

Hypocritical moral equivocation has nothing to do with constitutionality and is therefore a moot point for anyone who brings it to the discussion. At least that’s what the Obama Administration is arguing about the penalty, uh ... mandate, …… uh ...... "tax." That’s right, it’s a tax! It wasn’t yesterday but it is today! Remember that he hasn't raised taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. In fact, he’s the first president to install a tax on doing nothing that applies exclusively to the middle class. Or is it a penalty ...... or a mandate ........ ?

I don't agree. If you're employed and receive Health Insurance though your employer, you've already purchased and therefore the mandate forces nothing on you. ( you being used in the general sense, not specifically you )

That being said however, the mandate does place an incredible burden in the cracks, like the midde class self employed.

The 80-85% payout is, in theory, supposed to drive costs down ( my wife's company is already planning a premium decrease for next year because of it ) but in MOST cases, in the best case scenario, that payout will take three to five years to force the majority of premiums down, which leaves several years where it would be cheaper for some to simply pay the fine.

Sounds like you don’t agree it’s a tax. Everything else you stated has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law. However, if that is the case, the Obama Admin changed their minds and now calls it a tax……… for legal purposes of course. FDR did the same thing, however, now we refer to Social Security as a tax to falsely get around the fact that it's actually an un-enumerated power exercised by congress. As I said before, providing for the general welfare is not a plenary power. If it were there would be no use for the other enumerated powers.

 

[Vidi]

Yes, the government made a market failure when it made a law that stated that no one could be turned away as a condition of their inability to pay. The hospitals this applies to are already in the act of commerce. So to fix that market failure they unconstitutionally force us to pay for a good/service as a condition of living and breathing while not planning to engage in commerce. The fact that one exists doesn’t make the other magically constitutional. The fact that they made a bad law, or an unworkable one, does not give them the authority to make an unconstitutional one. And the fact that they can regulate interstate commerce does not grant them the authority to force us to enter in to commerce. If they can, what is the limiting principle of the commerce clause? The Obama Administration is arguing that there isn’t one. The Obama Administration is not arguing "general welfare" for reasons that would take to long for me to explain to you. Unknown by many the SCOTUS has put limitations on, and merged the, "general welfare" excuse.

Again, good point.

But a few questions:

Can you cite examples of how SCOTUS has put limitations on "General Welfare"?

Are these limitations/mergings for this case alone? Or preceding?

It's been my understanding that United States vs Butler, 1936, in which SCOTUS struck down portions of FDRs New Deal, gave Congress the discretion to define "General Welfare".

And if Congress alone has that power, then, it seems to me, a non lawyer, making that argument seems rather important to the case for the mandate being Constitutional.

Thoughts?

I am currently writing a book on this very subject! To answer that question you need to know the step by step history of that clause starting with the ideological origins of the constitution to the Articles, to Federalist 41 and then to the first debate on the subject in Hamilton’s "Constitutionality of the National Bank" which must be read about 5 times to truly appreciate the beauty and far reaching fallacy of Hamilton’s reasoning. In short, the General Welfare "clause" has always been a limitation and merged in with the enumerated powers even after Hamilton’s theory has been far expanded by those not content with constitutionally limited governance.

The law is not general in nature like Social Security but specific. Therefore, it does not apply and the government concedes this point. There are more cases in the 80’s that limit the general welfare clause. They are complicated and I do not wish to explain it for that reason. All you need to know now is that the Obama Administration is not arguing it for that very purpose. It does not apply. And trust me, if they thought it would add merit to their argument they would have used it. But they aren’t. They wouldn’t throw away a tool that could perhaps secure themselves victory. They are, however, arguing the taxing power.

So are you more in line with Madison then as opposed to Hamilton? ( though there seems to be a debate on Madison's true opinion - See Crosskeys Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States )


- That "General Welfare" is synonymous with the enumerated powers detailed in the Constitution and nothing more?

 

[Vidi]

Hypocritical moral equivocation has nothing to do with constitutionality and is therefore a moot point for anyone who brings it to the discussion. At least that’s what the Obama Administration is arguing about the penalty, uh ... mandate, …… uh ...... "tax." That’s right, it’s a tax! It wasn’t yesterday but it is today! Remember that he hasn't raised taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. In fact, he’s the first president to install a tax on doing nothing that applies exclusively to the middle class. Or is it a penalty ...... or a mandate ........ ?

I don't agree. If you're employed and receive Health Insurance though your employer, you've already purchased and therefore the mandate forces nothing on you. ( you being used in the general sense, not specifically you )

That being said however, the mandate does place an incredible burden in the cracks, like the midde class self employed.

The 80-85% payout is, in theory, supposed to drive costs down ( my wife's company is already planning a premium decrease for next year because of it ) but in MOST cases, in the best case scenario, that payout will take three to five years to force the majority of premiums down, which leaves several years where it would be cheaper for some to simply pay the fine.

Sounds like you don’t agree it’s a tax. Everything else you stated has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law. However, if that is the case, the Obama Admin changed their minds and now calls it a tax……… for legal purposes of course. FDR did the same thing, however, now we refer to Social Security as a tax to falsely get around the fact that it's actually an un-enumerated power exercised by congress. As I said before, providing for the general welfare is not a plenary power. If it were there would be no use for the other enumerated powers.

Yes, I was speaking of the tax...sorry I should have been qualified that. My bad. It's late. Hehe