Supreme Court Bound! Health Care Reform Law Unconstitutional

[loosecannon]

If the law were being financed primarily through a cost shift to private premiums, paid in private dollars, it wouldn't cost $900 billion in public dollars in the first decade. And there would be no--or very limited--subsidies for private coverage. And young, healthy people wouldn't be able to satisfy the mandate simply by buying catastrophic coverage.

You still don't get it. Medicare and medicaid costs are being offset by more lucrative patients being forced to participate in the system. This is the way the system already works btw, medicare and medicaid already pay less for the same care.

Since the bill is being touted as producing enough savings in medicare etc to offset the costs associated with startup over a decade then there must be a savings realized in medicare costs. That savings is offset within the care and insurance industries by a new pool of participants who are paying more for the same services.

It's a stealth subsidy. But it is very real all the same.

 

[The Rabbi]

If the law were being financed primarily through a cost shift to private premiums, paid in private dollars, it wouldn't cost $900 billion in public dollars in the first decade. And there would be no--or very limited--subsidies for private coverage. And young, healthy people wouldn't be able to satisfy the mandate simply by buying catastrophic coverage.

You still don't get it. Medicare and medicaid costs are being offset by more lucrative patients being forced to participate in the system. This is the way the system already works btw, medicare and medicaid already pay less for the same care.

Since the bill is being touted as producing enough savings in medicare etc to offset the costs associated with startup over a decade then there must be a savings realized in medicare costs. That savings is offset within the care and insurance industries by a new pool of participants who are paying more for the same services.

It's a stealth subsidy. But it is very real all the same.

What the devil have you done with Loosecannon???

 

[loosecannon]

If the law were being financed primarily through a cost shift to private premiums, paid in private dollars, it wouldn't cost $900 billion in public dollars in the first decade. And there would be no--or very limited--subsidies for private coverage. And young, healthy people wouldn't be able to satisfy the mandate simply by buying catastrophic coverage.

You still don't get it. Medicare and medicaid costs are being offset by more lucrative patients being forced to participate in the system. This is the way the system already works btw, medicare and medicaid already pay less for the same care.

Since the bill is being touted as producing enough savings in medicare etc to offset the costs associated with startup over a decade then there must be a savings realized in medicare costs. That savings is offset within the care and insurance industries by a new pool of participants who are paying more for the same services.

It's a stealth subsidy. But it is very real all the same.

What the devil have you done with Loosecannon???

Don't worry, If it was up to me the entire private health insurance industry would be dechartered and replaced with non profit health insurance coops or government insurance. Probably at the state level.

But I don't like being lied to when it is obvious that the real goal of Obama care was to keep medicare solvent without doing anything to contain health care costs.

A steal tax. And an out of control industry.

 

[loosecannon]

That is way too much limbo. That's a trainwreck for the health care programs themselves.

I don't have much if any sympathy for them in this situation. They're the ones who bought and paid for this scheme over any other that could have been enacted with far better results, they're the ones who stand to make a killing if it stays on the books, tough luck if they didn't see these challenges coming and plan appropriately. The law only bends so far for money, and ideally at least in the Judiciary it doesn't bend for money at all.

E.D. VA and the 4th Circuit is what's called a "rocket docket", if it makes you feel any better. They have a tendency to fast track issues like these through the process and kick 'em on up to the next level fast in judicial terms. But even a rocket docket can't ignore the procedural rules and time frames, and they must hear the full argument and provide appropriate process.

Goldcat, I wasn't referring to the insurance industry or the states or the parties, but to the programs themselves which are compromised by a lack of certainty. How can the states proceed setting up exchanges if they don't know how this ruling will be decided? How can they manage a transition from the present systems to an unknown?


I just read an article that claims logical errors in the ruling but I definitely do not agree with the rationale provided in the article. But I also know law is not always intuitive. What do you think?

Amateur Hour: VA Judge Makes Elementary Error In Health Care Ruling

The Virginia federal district court judge who ruled yesterday that the individual mandate in the health care bill is unconstitutional is catching a lot of flack -- and not just for having a financial interest in an anti-health care reform consulting firm.

Legal experts are attacking Judge Henry Hudson's decision on the merits, citing an elementary logical flaw at the heart of his opinion. And that has conservative scholars -- even ones sympathetic to the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional -- prepared to see Hudson's decision thrown out.

"I've had a chance to read Judge Hudson's opinion, and it seems to me it has a fairly obvious and quite significant error," writes Orin Kerr, a professor of law at George Washington University, on the generally conservative law blog The Volokh Conspiracy.

Kerr and others note that Hudson's argument against Congress' power to require people to purchase health insurance rests on a tautology.

The key portion of the ruling reads:

If a person's decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution.

Kerr notes that this is all wrong. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to take steps beyond those listed in the Constitution to achieve its Constitutional ends, including the regulation of interstate commerce. Hudson's argument wipes a key part of the Constitution out of existence. Kerr says Hudson "rendered [it] a nullity."

Kerr's co-blogger, Case Western Reserve University Law Professor Jonathan Adler agreed, though he cautioned that Hudson's error doesn't necessarily imply that the mandate is constitutional.

Amateur Hour: VA Judge Makes Elementary Error In Health Care Ruling | TPMDC

See to me it sounds Like Kerr got it wrong because he overlooked the phrase "Constitutional ends" in the interp of the Necessary and Proper Clause

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is way too much limbo. That's a trainwreck for the health care programs themselves.

I don't have much if any sympathy for them in this situation. They're the ones who bought and paid for this scheme over any other that could have been enacted with far better results, they're the ones who stand to make a killing if it stays on the books, tough luck if they didn't see these challenges coming and plan appropriately. The law only bends so far for money, and ideally at least in the Judiciary it doesn't bend for money at all.

E.D. VA and the 4th Circuit is what's called a "rocket docket", if it makes you feel any better. They have a tendency to fast track issues like these through the process and kick 'em on up to the next level fast in judicial terms. But even a rocket docket can't ignore the procedural rules and time frames, and they must hear the full argument and provide appropriate process.

Goldcat, I wasn't referring to the insurance industry or the states or the parties, but to the programs themselves which are compromised by a lack of certainty. How can the states proceed setting up exchanges if they don't know how this ruling will be decided? How can they manage a transition from the present systems to an unknown?


I just read an article that claims logical errors in the ruling but I definitely do not agree with the rationale provided in the article. But I also know law is not always intuitive. What do you think?

Amateur Hour: VA Judge Makes Elementary Error In Health Care Ruling

The Virginia federal district court judge who ruled yesterday that the individual mandate in the health care bill is unconstitutional is catching a lot of flack -- and not just for having a financial interest in an anti-health care reform consulting firm.

Legal experts are attacking Judge Henry Hudson's decision on the merits, citing an elementary logical flaw at the heart of his opinion. And that has conservative scholars -- even ones sympathetic to the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional -- prepared to see Hudson's decision thrown out.

"I've had a chance to read Judge Hudson's opinion, and it seems to me it has a fairly obvious and quite significant error," writes Orin Kerr, a professor of law at George Washington University, on the generally conservative law blog The Volokh Conspiracy.

Kerr and others note that Hudson's argument against Congress' power to require people to purchase health insurance rests on a tautology.

The key portion of the ruling reads:

If a person's decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution.

Kerr notes that this is all wrong. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to take steps beyond those listed in the Constitution to achieve its Constitutional ends, including the regulation of interstate commerce. Hudson's argument wipes a key part of the Constitution out of existence. Kerr says Hudson "rendered [it] a nullity."

Kerr's co-blogger, Case Western Reserve University Law Professor Jonathan Adler agreed, though he cautioned that Hudson's error doesn't necessarily imply that the mandate is constitutional.

Amateur Hour: VA Judge Makes Elementary Error In Health Care Ruling | TPMDC

See to me it sounds Like Kerr got it wrong because he overlooked the phrase "Constitutional ends" in the interp of the Necessary and Proper Clause

The Necessary and Proper clause applies to taxes, which the mandate is clearly not. Kerr is obviously grasping at straws here.

On the other hand, quite a few people have been trying to pull apart the decision based on Hudson's reading of the commerce clause, but he might actually be following precedent from a concurring opinion from Scalia in Raich.

The Volokh Conspiracy From Judge Hudson’s Pen to Justice Scalia’s Ear

I hope Goldcatt sees this and gives us her opinion based on this logic.

 

[goldcatt]

That is way too much limbo. That's a trainwreck for the health care programs themselves.

I don't have much if any sympathy for them in this situation. They're the ones who bought and paid for this scheme over any other that could have been enacted with far better results, they're the ones who stand to make a killing if it stays on the books, tough luck if they didn't see these challenges coming and plan appropriately. The law only bends so far for money, and ideally at least in the Judiciary it doesn't bend for money at all.

E.D. VA and the 4th Circuit is what's called a "rocket docket", if it makes you feel any better. They have a tendency to fast track issues like these through the process and kick 'em on up to the next level fast in judicial terms. But even a rocket docket can't ignore the procedural rules and time frames, and they must hear the full argument and provide appropriate process.

Goldcat, I wasn't referring to the insurance industry or the states or the parties, but to the programs themselves which are compromised by a lack of certainty. How can the states proceed setting up exchanges if they don't know how this ruling will be decided? How can they manage a transition from the present systems to an unknown?


I just read an article that claims logical errors in the ruling but I definitely do not agree with the rationale provided in the article. But I also know law is not always intuitive. What do you think?

Amateur Hour: VA Judge Makes Elementary Error In Health Care Ruling

The Virginia federal district court judge who ruled yesterday that the individual mandate in the health care bill is unconstitutional is catching a lot of flack -- and not just for having a financial interest in an anti-health care reform consulting firm.

Legal experts are attacking Judge Henry Hudson's decision on the merits, citing an elementary logical flaw at the heart of his opinion. And that has conservative scholars -- even ones sympathetic to the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional -- prepared to see Hudson's decision thrown out.

"I've had a chance to read Judge Hudson's opinion, and it seems to me it has a fairly obvious and quite significant error," writes Orin Kerr, a professor of law at George Washington University, on the generally conservative law blog The Volokh Conspiracy.

Kerr and others note that Hudson's argument against Congress' power to require people to purchase health insurance rests on a tautology.

The key portion of the ruling reads:

If a person's decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution.

Kerr notes that this is all wrong. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to take steps beyond those listed in the Constitution to achieve its Constitutional ends, including the regulation of interstate commerce. Hudson's argument wipes a key part of the Constitution out of existence. Kerr says Hudson "rendered [it] a nullity."

Kerr's co-blogger, Case Western Reserve University Law Professor Jonathan Adler agreed, though he cautioned that Hudson's error doesn't necessarily imply that the mandate is constitutional.

Amateur Hour: VA Judge Makes Elementary Error In Health Care Ruling | TPMDC

See to me it sounds Like Kerr got it wrong because he overlooked the phrase "Constitutional ends" in the interp of the Necessary and Proper Clause

There are a few areas of sloppy logic and case differentiation in the opinion,IMO. I'm not sure I'd agree this is one of them. When you look at the document as an organic whole, Congress has a list of powers in Article I. The Necessary and Proper clause empowers Congress to enact legislation as it deems necessary and appropriate to use those powers. That's the system's way of leaving their hands free to react to different needs and realities without tying their hands as to policy. Makes sense, right?

So...under the way I interpret it (and I'm mostly a moderate pragmatist in case you were interested) it's an if/then situation. IF the law is constitutional under the Commerce Clause, THEN the Court moves on to determine whether the specific law is necessary and proper to make use of that power. It has no power to question the wisdom of the policy, only whether it is rationally related to its intended, constitutionally authorized goal.

There are, however, those to my left and those to my right whose method of interpretation either severs the object power from the necessary and proper clause in the case of the far right, since some on that fringe read each provision separately and without reference to the whole, or bestows the Necessary and Proper clause with its own assumed power albeit without object, which would be some on the farthest extreme of the left. In either of those cases, you're looking at a pretty extreme construction but it exists.

I don't see how you can read the document either way and have it make any sense, personally. It's an organic four corners system, not a bunch of individual lines mashed together into a jumble of separate and unrelated statements. And the words and its manner of construction do have meanings - often vague ones that leave room for interpretation, but meanings nonetheless. But here's me getting all theoretical.

And I was under the impression you were talking about the health care system/insurers previously. My mistake.

With no injunction in place it's pretty clear the States need to move forward, the law other than the mandate remains in full effect. And the mandate isn't effective yet anyway.

 

[goldcatt]

I don't have much if any sympathy for them in this situation. They're the ones who bought and paid for this scheme over any other that could have been enacted with far better results, they're the ones who stand to make a killing if it stays on the books, tough luck if they didn't see these challenges coming and plan appropriately. The law only bends so far for money, and ideally at least in the Judiciary it doesn't bend for money at all.

E.D. VA and the 4th Circuit is what's called a "rocket docket", if it makes you feel any better. They have a tendency to fast track issues like these through the process and kick 'em on up to the next level fast in judicial terms. But even a rocket docket can't ignore the procedural rules and time frames, and they must hear the full argument and provide appropriate process.

Goldcat, I wasn't referring to the insurance industry or the states or the parties, but to the programs themselves which are compromised by a lack of certainty. How can the states proceed setting up exchanges if they don't know how this ruling will be decided? How can they manage a transition from the present systems to an unknown?


I just read an article that claims logical errors in the ruling but I definitely do not agree with the rationale provided in the article. But I also know law is not always intuitive. What do you think?

Amateur Hour: VA Judge Makes Elementary Error In Health Care Ruling

The Virginia federal district court judge who ruled yesterday that the individual mandate in the health care bill is unconstitutional is catching a lot of flack -- and not just for having a financial interest in an anti-health care reform consulting firm.

Legal experts are attacking Judge Henry Hudson's decision on the merits, citing an elementary logical flaw at the heart of his opinion. And that has conservative scholars -- even ones sympathetic to the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional -- prepared to see Hudson's decision thrown out.

"I've had a chance to read Judge Hudson's opinion, and it seems to me it has a fairly obvious and quite significant error," writes Orin Kerr, a professor of law at George Washington University, on the generally conservative law blog The Volokh Conspiracy.

Kerr and others note that Hudson's argument against Congress' power to require people to purchase health insurance rests on a tautology.

The key portion of the ruling reads:
Kerr notes that this is all wrong. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to take steps beyond those listed in the Constitution to achieve its Constitutional ends, including the regulation of interstate commerce. Hudson's argument wipes a key part of the Constitution out of existence. Kerr says Hudson "rendered [it] a nullity."

Kerr's co-blogger, Case Western Reserve University Law Professor Jonathan Adler agreed, though he cautioned that Hudson's error doesn't necessarily imply that the mandate is constitutional.

Amateur Hour: VA Judge Makes Elementary Error In Health Care Ruling | TPMDC

See to me it sounds Like Kerr got it wrong because he overlooked the phrase "Constitutional ends" in the interp of the Necessary and Proper Clause

The Necessary and Proper clause applies to taxes, which the mandate is clearly not. Kerr is obviously grasping at straws here.

On the other hand, quite a few people have been trying to pull apart the decision based on Hudson's reading of the commerce clause, but he might actually be following precedent from a concurring opinion from Scalia in Raich.

The Volokh Conspiracy From Judge Hudson’s Pen to Justice Scalia’s Ear

I hope Goldcatt sees this and gives us her opinion based on this logic.

I see it, have to run for a bit but I'll look it over and get back to you later. At a casual glance it looks really interesting, but it needs a thorough read and a little side work.

And thanks for putting it up!

 

[The Rabbi]

Goldcat, I wasn't referring to the insurance industry or the states or the parties, but to the programs themselves which are compromised by a lack of certainty. How can the states proceed setting up exchanges if they don't know how this ruling will be decided? How can they manage a transition from the present systems to an unknown?


I just read an article that claims logical errors in the ruling but I definitely do not agree with the rationale provided in the article. But I also know law is not always intuitive. What do you think?

Amateur Hour: VA Judge Makes Elementary Error In Health Care Ruling | TPMDC

See to me it sounds Like Kerr got it wrong because he overlooked the phrase "Constitutional ends" in the interp of the Necessary and Proper Clause

The Necessary and Proper clause applies to taxes, which the mandate is clearly not. Kerr is obviously grasping at straws here.

On the other hand, quite a few people have been trying to pull apart the decision based on Hudson's reading of the commerce clause, but he might actually be following precedent from a concurring opinion from Scalia in Raich.

The Volokh Conspiracy From Judge Hudson’s Pen to Justice Scalia’s Ear

I hope Goldcatt sees this and gives us her opinion based on this logic.

I see it, have to run for a bit but I'll look it over and get back to you later. At a casual glance it looks really interesting, but it needs a thorough read and a little side work.

And thanks for putting it up!

We're holding our breath.

 

[goldcatt]

For you, QW.

re: The Volokh Conspiracy From Judge Hudson’s Pen to Justice Scalia’s Ear

I had to go back and read that Gonzales concurrence, I couldn't remember it. Holy Shit, Batman. I substantially agree with Scalia on something.

Not entirely, but substantially.

I agree more with several of the more cogent comments on that piece though, the lynchpin here is activity v. inactivity not implication of the necessary and proper clause. And for the reasons I stated above, because I don't think you get to the necessary and proper clause without first clearing the commerce clause hurdle. And once you clear that hurdle, the legislative gets a lot of deference as to what it deems necessary and proper as a policy to advance their goal. The necessary and proper clause alone gives no power, it only grants latitude in execution when coupled with an object. Which is basically Scalia's argument.

The judge here may be attempting to have Scalia's concurrence in Gonzales confirmed, the logic does make a lot more sense when you read the two side by side, but I can't see it happening. Simply because by applying his reasoning and vote in Gonzales, Scalia would likely have gone in the other direction. Remember, he concurred with Gonzales. That means he voted with the majority, he just had a different reason for his vote. And Gonzales is a extremely broad application of the commerce clause, using criminal sanction rather than civil penalties or taxes as is the case here.

Look at what Scalia argued. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The majority found regulation of personal marijuana cultivation constitutional under the commerce clause. Scalia said no, the regulation itself did not directly involve something that has an impact on interstate commerce and therefore was not authorized under the commerce clause. BUT, and this is a big but, that the necessary and proper clause allowed Congress to step outside the strict bounds of interstate commerce in order to effectively exercise its power. In other words it gave them wider latitude in what they could regulate and how it could be regulated than the commerce clause alone. It's not restrictive, it's empowering. That's significant - and not favorable for a ruling against PPACA.

 

[Contumacious]

Supreme Court Bound! Health Care Reform Law Unconstitutional

Yes, indeed it is.

I predict that a SCOTUS 5-4 decision will affirm the USDC.

.

 

[Kat]

Supreme Court Bound! Health Care Reform Law Unconstitutional

Yes, indeed it is.

I predict that a SCOTUS 5-4 decision will affirm the USDC.

.

Well, I 'll be darn. Look who's back

 

[Yurt]

Washington (CNN) -- Today is a good day for liberty. By striking down the unprecedented requirement that Americans buy health insurance -- the "individual mandate" -- Judge Henry Hudson vindicated the idea that ours is a government of delegated and enumerated, and thus limited, powers.

But this should not be surprising, for the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to force private commercial transactions.

Even if the Supreme Court has broadened the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause -- it can now reach local activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce -- never before has it allowed people to face a civil penalty for declining to buy a particular product. Hudson found therefore that the individual mandate "is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution."

Stated another way, every exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce has involved some form of action or transaction engaged in by an individual or legal entity. The government's theory -- that the decision not to buy insurance is an economic one that affects interstate commerce in various ways -- would, for the first time ever, permit laws commanding people to engage in economic activity.



What judge's health care ruling means The government's theory ... would, for the first time ever, permit laws commanding people to engage in economic activity.

Under such a reading, which judges in two other cases have unfortunately adopted, nobody would ever be able to plausibly claim that the Constitution limits congressional power. The federal government would then have wide authority to require that Americans engage in activities ranging from eating spinach and joining gyms (in the health care realm) to buying GM cars. Congress could tell people what to study or what job to take: We need fewer lawyers and more engineers, right?

As Hudson put it, "This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence."

Indeed, not even in the infamous 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn -- when the Supreme Court ratified Congress' regulation of what farmers grew in their backyards on the theory that such local activity, in the aggregate, affects national wheat prices -- have courts faced such a breathtaking assertion of raw federal power. Even at the height of the New Deal, Congress did not attempt to force people to buy wheat to support the new national agricultural policy.

U.S. can't force people to buy stuff - CNN.com

 

[Care4all]

aren't we forced to buy private auto insurance if we choose to drive our own cars on our own public roads payed for by our own taxes though?

 

[Foxfyre]

aren't we forced to buy private auto insurance if we choose to drive our own cars on our own public roads payed for by our own taxes though?

We are not required to carry auto insurance that pays for our own injuries or damages. We are only required to carry a specified minimum amount for any injuries or damages that we might cause to others. And if we choose to park that car and don't drive it on public roads, we are not required to have any kind of insurance on it.

Further, the matter of auto insurance is regulated within each individual state and is not the business of the Federal government. Which is how health insurance is properly managed if government is going to be involved in that at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

aren't we forced to buy private auto insurance if we choose to drive our own cars on our own public roads payed for by our own taxes though?

No, we are not forced to buy insurance because not everyone owns a car. Additionally, the insurance those who choose to drive are required to purchase is liability insurance, and that does not cover us, it covers people we might injure and property we might damage. And, as a final point, the federal government does not force you to buy insurance.

Let us review the differences.

If you do not want to buy auto insurance, don't drive. If you do not want to buy health insurance, don't breathe. I think most people would see a slight difference in those. Auto insurance covers others against damage we might do if we choose to engage in a risky behavior. Health insurance covers us against whatever the government decides we need to be covered against. Auto insurance is imposed by state governments, the mandate is imposed by the federal government. While there are restrictions on state government powers they are generally a lot more powerful than the federal government in areas like this.

 

[goldcatt]

aren't we forced to buy private auto insurance if we choose to drive our own cars on our own public roads payed for by our own taxes though?

We are not required to carry auto insurance that pays for our own injuries or damages. We are only required to carry a specified minimum amount for any injuries or damages that we might cause to others. And if we choose to park that car and don't drive it on public roads, we are not required to have any kind of insurance on it.

Further, the matter of auto insurance is regulated within each individual state and is not the business of the Federal government. Which is how health insurance is properly managed if government is going to be involved in that at all.

You just made half of the Feds' argument and half of the State's.

The Feds are arguing that the insurance mandate is necessary because without it, the rest of us will be forced to carry the costs of both treatment for the uninsured and premium rates for the unhealthy who choose to purchase insurance. Only with the uninsured, those who choose to be uninsured generally being young and healthy, can there be a feasible cost structure to make the rest of the Act workable.

The State is making a Tenth Amendment argument that the mandate of lack thereof, in fact the entirety of the law, is solely within the purview of the States and the Federal government has no power to enact or enforce it. Similar to your statement concerning auto insurance.

And of course, adults can always choose not to go to the doctor if they're ill or injured. Children have mandated medical exams and vaccinations to attend public or private schools or child care facilities and are required to submit proof of such even when homeschooled in at least some states, and failure to seek medical care when needed can be considered neglect, but there is no such requirement for adults. So strictly speaking, medical care is also a choice, not a necessity. Most things when you get right down to it are choices The alternatives may not be attractive, but there are always alternatives.

 

[Foxfyre]

aren't we forced to buy private auto insurance if we choose to drive our own cars on our own public roads payed for by our own taxes though?

We are not required to carry auto insurance that pays for our own injuries or damages. We are only required to carry a specified minimum amount for any injuries or damages that we might cause to others. And if we choose to park that car and don't drive it on public roads, we are not required to have any kind of insurance on it.

Further, the matter of auto insurance is regulated within each individual state and is not the business of the Federal government. Which is how health insurance is properly managed if government is going to be involved in that at all.

You just made half of the Feds' argument and half of the State's.

The Feds are arguing that the insurance mandate is necessary because without it, the rest of us will be forced to carry the costs of both treatment for the uninsured and premium rates for the unhealthy who choose to purchase insurance. Only with the uninsured, those who choose to be uninsured generally being young and healthy, can there be a feasible cost structure to make the rest of the Act workable.

The State is making a Tenth Amendment argument that the mandate of lack thereof, in fact the entirety of the law, is solely within the purview of the States and the Federal government has no power to enact or enforce it. Similar to your statement concerning auto insurance.

And of course, adults can always choose not to go to the doctor if they're ill or injured. Children have mandated medical exams and vaccinations to attend public or private schools or child care facilities and are required to submit proof of such even when homeschooled in at least some states, and failure to seek medical care when needed can be considered neglect, but there is no such requirement for adults. So strictly speaking, medical care is also a choice, not a necessity. Most things when you get right down to it are choices The alternatives may not be attractive, but there are always alternatives.

All factual statements but still not addressing the core issue.

Children have been required to get vaccinations etc. before attending school for a very long time now including well before either the federal or state governments got involved in that other than to urge parents to get it done. Parents paid for it or in most places local communities set up periodic free vaccination clinics. But all kids were required to go to school and all were required to be properly vaccinated before doing so and it got done. Without involvement of the federal government.

Children have always gotten sick and needed medical attention from time to time, and that was true before the the federal or state governments got involved in any way. And most parents took their kids to the doctor and, if they didn't have money to pay at the time, they paid it out a few dollars a week or month until they paid their bills. Many a time a local community took up collections to help out with an needed operation if the parents couldn't come up with the money. Sure some parents were irresponsible and didn't do right by their kids but that was always the exception rather than the rule. I think there are probably a higher percentage of parents now who don't do right by their kids.

Healthcare is no more essential to life, health, and happiness than is food, shelter, and clothing and it makes no more sense for the government to take over or control the entire healthcare industry any more than it makes sense for the government to take over and control all the other essentials of life.

The government should spend its energies setting up and enforcing anti trust and RICO laws and setting minimal standards of quality and safety for products and services and then let healthy competition in the free market make healthcare affordable as it does in all other essentials of life. We'll all be better off.

 

[The Rabbi]

aren't we forced to buy private auto insurance if we choose to drive our own cars on our own public roads payed for by our own taxes though?

We are not required to carry auto insurance that pays for our own injuries or damages. We are only required to carry a specified minimum amount for any injuries or damages that we might cause to others. And if we choose to park that car and don't drive it on public roads, we are not required to have any kind of insurance on it.

Further, the matter of auto insurance is regulated within each individual state and is not the business of the Federal government. Which is how health insurance is properly managed if government is going to be involved in that at all.

You just made half of the Feds' argument and half of the State's.

The Feds are arguing that the insurance mandate is necessary because without it, the rest of us will be forced to carry the costs of both treatment for the uninsured and premium rates for the unhealthy who choose to purchase insurance. Only with the uninsured, those who choose to be uninsured generally being young and healthy, can there be a feasible cost structure to make the rest of the Act workable.

The State is making a Tenth Amendment argument that the mandate of lack thereof, in fact the entirety of the law, is solely within the purview of the States and the Federal government has no power to enact or enforce it. Similar to your statement concerning auto insurance.

And of course, adults can always choose not to go to the doctor if they're ill or injured. Children have mandated medical exams and vaccinations to attend public or private schools or child care facilities and are required to submit proof of such even when homeschooled in at least some states, and failure to seek medical care when needed can be considered neglect, but there is no such requirement for adults. So strictly speaking, medical care is also a choice, not a necessity. Most things when you get right down to it are choices The alternatives may not be attractive, but there are always alternatives.

Your restatement of the Government's position amounts to: This is constitutional because if it weren't we couldn't do all these jazzy things.
That isn't an argument.

The basic truth is: If the Federal government can mandate people to buy individual products then is there anything gov't cannot mandate people to do? If the answer is no, then what is the point of having a government limited by the Constitution?

 

[Foxfyre]

One othe thought I didn't address in my previous post:

Where is it written that the federal OR state government has authority to require Citizen A to pay for Citizen B's health care? Yes people in immediate crisis should be taken care of in an emergency and doctors and hospitals have always done that. So lets get the federal and state governments out of the business of mandating that people who can'pay for their healthcare automatically get it free. Lets go back to the policy of everybody paying what they can however small that amount might be. They're paying for their beer and cigs and ho hos. They can jolly well pay $10 - $20 - $50/month to pay off a doctor or emergency room bill. And if they know they'll be expected to do that, they won't abuse the system.

 

[goldcatt]

We are not required to carry auto insurance that pays for our own injuries or damages. We are only required to carry a specified minimum amount for any injuries or damages that we might cause to others. And if we choose to park that car and don't drive it on public roads, we are not required to have any kind of insurance on it.

Further, the matter of auto insurance is regulated within each individual state and is not the business of the Federal government. Which is how health insurance is properly managed if government is going to be involved in that at all.

You just made half of the Feds' argument and half of the State's.

The Feds are arguing that the insurance mandate is necessary because without it, the rest of us will be forced to carry the costs of both treatment for the uninsured and premium rates for the unhealthy who choose to purchase insurance. Only with the uninsured, those who choose to be uninsured generally being young and healthy, can there be a feasible cost structure to make the rest of the Act workable.

The State is making a Tenth Amendment argument that the mandate of lack thereof, in fact the entirety of the law, is solely within the purview of the States and the Federal government has no power to enact or enforce it. Similar to your statement concerning auto insurance.

And of course, adults can always choose not to go to the doctor if they're ill or injured. Children have mandated medical exams and vaccinations to attend public or private schools or child care facilities and are required to submit proof of such even when homeschooled in at least some states, and failure to seek medical care when needed can be considered neglect, but there is no such requirement for adults. So strictly speaking, medical care is also a choice, not a necessity. Most things when you get right down to it are choices The alternatives may not be attractive, but there are always alternatives.

All factual statements but still not addressing the core issue.

Children have been required to get vaccinations etc. before attending school for a very long time now including well before either the federal or state governments got involved in that other than to urge parents to get it done. Parents paid for it or in most places local communities set up periodic free vaccination clinics. But all kids were required to go to school and all were required to be properly vaccinated before doing so and it got done. Without involvement of the federal government.

Children have always gotten sick and needed medical attention from time to time, and that was true before the the federal or state governments got involved in any way. And most parents took their kids to the doctor and, if they didn't have money to pay at the time, they paid it out a few dollars a week or month until they paid their bills. Many a time a local community took up collections to help out with an needed operation if the parents couldn't come up with the money. Sure some parents were irresponsible and didn't do right by their kids but that was always the exception rather than the rule. I think there are probably a higher percentage of parents now who don't do right by their kids.

Healthcare is no more essential to life, health, and happiness than is food, shelter, and clothing and it makes no more sense for the government to take over or control the entire healthcare industry any more than it makes sense for the government to take over and control all the other essentials of life.

The government should spend its energies setting up and enforcing anti trust and RICO laws and setting minimal standards of quality and safety for products and services and then let healthy competition in the free market make healthcare affordable as it does in all other essentials of life. We'll all be better off.

The question posed was whether the health insurance mandate was different from the auto insurance mandate enforced via civil and criminal penalty by the States. The straight factual answer is, it really isn't.