Individual mandate in trouble?

[Liability]

Because Delaware and South Dakota are the only states with usury statutes.

Wrong.

NY, for example has both civil usury laws (16%) [see, N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-501(1) and N.Y. Banking Law § 14-a(1)] and criminal usury laws (25%) [see, N.Y. Penal Law § 190.40].

Thanks for helping me catch my typo. They're the only states without usury statutes.

Oh.

I probably should realized that.

My bad.

Sorry.

 

[Polk]

Wrong.

NY, for example has both civil usury laws (16%) [see, N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-501(1) and N.Y. Banking Law § 14-a(1)] and criminal usury laws (25%) [see, N.Y. Penal Law § 190.40].

Thanks for helping me catch my typo. They're the only states without usury statutes.

Oh.

I probably should realized that.

My bad.

Sorry.

It's cool. I totally would have missed it without your post.

 

[Zander]

The law was passed as a package and must fall as a package....

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law - latimes.com

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The law was passed as a package and must fall as a package....

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law - latimes.com

yeah basically the rest of it wont function properly without the mandate.

 

[Liability]

Now, by the way, Delaware DOES have some laws concerning usury, too.

CHAPTER 23. INTEREST

But it does look like you have the facts correctly stated relative to South Dakota, Polk.

South Dakota Codified Laws

 

[Conservative]

The law was passed as a package and must fall as a package....

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law - latimes.com

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

BarryCare is on life support, and it sounds like the SCOTUS is about ready to pull the plug.

 

[dblack]

BarryCare is on life support, and it sounds like the SCOTUS is about ready to pull the plug.

Sure hope so. But I'm trying not to get my hopes up. It's very possible that Kennedy and/or Roberts are grandstanding so that when the concede it will look like they put up a good fight.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The law was passed as a package and must fall as a package....

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law - latimes.com

yeah basically the rest of it wont function properly without the mandate.

I'd heard that the Justices had the ability to just strike down the Mandate, which makes sense. A lot of the other stuff would fall under Federal Regulatory powers regardless. The mandate is the one issue that is the source of most of the issues.

I do agree that without the Mandate, the whole thing falls apart. There's a lot of very popular provisions in the law, such as the Pre-Existing clause, the No-Cap clause, etc. But without the Mandate that would force insurance policy prices through the roof or force insurance companies out of business.

If the rest of it stays intact, then the GOP is going to be forced to run on a platform of cutting off insurance for kids and old folks by the media or just bow out to the pressure of the Single payer as the current system slowly fails.

 

[thereisnospoon]

how stupid he is.

wow your reading comprehension is way off. it was already established that one does not choose to participate in the health care market, since everyone needs medical care at some point in their life they do not choose to participate. apparently this is was over your head. this is vastly different from choosing not to participate. guess the english language isnt your strong suite. since people dont choose to participate, this is not an infringement upon a persons freedom of choice.

This is bogus bull. There is no argument that not choosing to buy insurance keeps you out of the health care market.

And.....

You can choose not to participate in the health care market. We showed that on other threads but you stilll hold to your precious article of faith.

Fail....

Still waiting for those sections of Federalist 10....

now shut the **** about fed 10. ive posted this same article for you 3 times, which proved madison was in favor of a strong central government.


Central to the tenth paper in the Federalist series is faction. The argument Madison makes is that faction and liberty are inseparable. Instead of focusing on trying to eliminate the causes for faction, the choice of government can control the effects of faction. Madison makes the argument that the means to control the causes of faction is to stamp on dissenting opinions, and remove liberty. In other words oppress until all the polity is of the same opinion. This is totalitarianism. Madison dismisses this as being against the nature of man;
As long as the reason of man continues to be fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed
Faction is a normal part of liberty, and wrapped in the fallibility of humankind. John Stuart Mills makes similar arguments as to why freedom of expression should never be curtailed. An individual can never be sure that they are not suppressing a truthful opinion as humanity's reasoning abilities are not perfect. Madison uses a similar argument to Mills as to why liberty cannot be abolished in a functioning government;
Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
From this Madison concludes that liberty and faction are essential in any healthy government system. What isn't healthy is the violence of faction. Madison argues that controlling the effects of violent faction can be achieved through the Republican model of government.
Any individual needs to be concerned about government using the apparatus of the nation-state for the purposes of coercion. Madison was also concerned with this issue, he saw the violence of faction being when a group of individuals created a faction with a common interest that was adverse to individual rights, the rights of minorities and against the common good. Madison's view of common good is similar to the Aristotlean notion of virtue being necessary in the ruling elite.
The environment that Madison wrote this in needed to explain how the new constitution and republican form of federal government would have greater stability than the previous continental congress. The paper also needed to explain how the system would protect against the competing factions drowning out the rights of minorities and the public good. It also needed to explain how it would halt mob rule. All issues that had posed problems in the self-government of the colonies previous, during and after the revolution of 1776.
Madison sees faction as an unavoidable in a polity of maximum liberty, and consequently seeks to minimize the violence of faction through the system; in other words controlling the effects of faction. Representative government is the process by which Madison seeks to temper this.


Short Essay on Federalist Paper No.10

The Federalist #10

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

Strong, yes. Overbearing and interloping in our daily lives plus interfering with the marketplace? Absolutely not!
BTW, oh great one. There is huge difference between regulating and interfering.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The law was passed as a package and must fall as a package....

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law - latimes.com

yeah basically the rest of it wont function properly without the mandate.

I'd heard that the Justices had the ability to just strike down the Mandate, which makes sense. A lot of the other stuff would fall under Federal Regulatory powers regardless. The mandate is the one issue that is the source of most of the issues.

I do agree that without the Mandate, the whole thing falls apart. There's a lot of very popular provisions in the law, such as the Pre-Existing clause, the No-Cap clause, etc. But without the Mandate that would force insurance policy prices through the roof or force insurance companies out of business.

If the rest of it stays intact, then the GOP is going to be forced to run on a platform of cutting off insurance for kids and old folks by the media or just bow out to the pressure of the Single payer as the current system slowly fails.

The pre-exiting condition clause makes the wheels come off.
There is no way the cost to cover a pre -existing condition can be controlled without finding new sources of revenue. That means that taxes will have to be increased dramatically or the government will have to set up boards or panels which as in the British system decide whether a patient can or cannot have certain treatments.
In the case of NICE the British system, taxes are very high AND there are bureaucrats which decide who gets treatment and which kinds will be permitted.
Death Panels.
Now we get to the meat and gravy of this issue...Political power...
Your quote...." the GOP is going to be forced to run on a platform of cutting off insurance for kids and old folks by the media "...
So with that sentence you admit that Obamacare is merely a tool to insure election of democrats supported by a media campaign of disinformation and political propaganda?
That's what I am reading.
Without Obamacare children and the elderly are not being 'cut off' from anything. That is why we have Medicaid and Medicare. Oh, but wait a minute. Obamacare is paid for in part by gutting Medicare and of course the administration tries to blame the GOP for that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Half the CONZ on here think taxes are a fricking crime against humanity. What the hell do any of them know about constitutional law? Even less.

The commerce clause is fricking HUGE in the world of SCOTUS.
One farmer lost his case against the fed government and told him he couldn't grow wheat on his own farm for his own use on that farm because it impacted interstate commerce, which was the domain of congress.

That's precedence, bitches. It means something in SCOTUS cases.
Which is a greater abuse of power? Compelling you to buy something as an investment in the entire community, much like taxation, or telling you what you can and cannot do on your own land?

Do some actual reading that's not some right wing retard site and you people might actually LEARN a thing or two about how your country ACTUALLY WORKS instead of how you think it does.

How old are you? 6?

 

[Liability]

The best legal argument about how the NON-inclusion of a severability clause by Congress makes the entire ObamaCare Act fall if the mandate gets struck down is found here:

Two factors demonstrate that Congress did not
intend the individual mandate to be severable. First,
the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R.
3962), which the House approved on November 7,
2009, contained an individual mandate section as well
as a severability provision.2 H.R. 3962’s severability
provision, however, was not included in the final version
of the ACA. Congress’s conscious rejection of a
severability clause in the ACA is strong evidence that
Congress did not intend for the statute’s individual
provisions to be severable.
Second, Congress would not intend for a provision
to be severable if severing it would allow an
inoperable or counterproductive regulatory scheme to
stand. Alaska Airlines, 480 U.S. at 684; accord Free
Enter. Fund. v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.,
130 S. Ct. 3138, 3161-62 (2010). The Federal Government
has conceded that the individual mandate is
essential to the ACA. As such, without the individual
mandate, the Act’s remaining portions cannot function
“in a manner consistent with the intent of Congress.”
See Alaska Airlines, 480 U.S. at 685. For example, in
Mead v. Holder, No. 1:10-CV-950-GK (D.D.C.), the Federal
Government asserted that the individual mandate
is essential to the workings of the ACA’s reforms
to the health insurance and health care markets. The
Federal Government stated
• that the ACA’s “reforms of the interstate insurance
market . . . could not function effectively
without the [individual mandate] provision.”
Memorandum in Support of the Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss, Mead v. Holder, No. 1:10-
CV-950-GK (D.D.C.), Doc. 15-1 at 22 (filed on
Aug. 20, 2010) (available on PACER) (emphasis
added);
• that the individual mandate is “an ‘essential’
part of the Act’s larger regulatory scheme
for the interstate health care market,” id.
(emphasis added);
• that Congress found the individual mandate
“not only is adapted to, but is ‘essential’ to,
achieving key reforms of the interstate health
care and health insurance markets,” id. at 24
(emphasis added); and
• that “Congress determined, also with substantial
reason, that [the individual mandate]
provision was essential to its comprehensive
scheme of reform. Congress acted well within
its authority to integrate the provision into
the interrelated revenue and spending provisions
of the Act.” Id. at 31 (emphasis added). * * * *

--
http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rac...-supreme-court-amicus-brief-florida-v-hhs.pdf

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Half the CONZ on here think taxes are a fricking crime against humanity. What the hell do any of them know about constitutional law? Even less.

The commerce clause is fricking HUGE in the world of SCOTUS.
One farmer lost his case against the fed government and told him he couldn't grow wheat on his own farm for his own use on that farm because it impacted interstate commerce, which was the domain of congress.

That's precedence, bitches. It means something in SCOTUS cases.
Which is a greater abuse of power? Compelling you to buy something as an investment in the entire community, much like taxation, or telling you what you can and cannot do on your own land?

Do some actual reading that's not some right wing retard site and you people might actually LEARN a thing or two about how your country ACTUALLY WORKS instead of how you think it does.

How old are you? 6?

That's an insult to most 6 year olds.

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is tremendous competition among credit card issuers. I can choose from hundreds of cards offering many options to suit my particular situation.
I wish health care were that flexible.

Again, why are the credit card companies based in just a very VERY small handful of states (to my knowledge, two). Answer that one question and we can have an adult conversation on whether or not selling across state lines is a good idea.

Or, better yet, have you ever tried to sue or otherwise dispute charges or credit reports that come from your credit card? Take a while to research how that works.

I'm very much opposed to selling across state lines when it comes to Insurance. I'm still waiting for you all to do the research so you can understand why.

No..You did NOT explain why your opposed to selling across state lines.
Oh, the ONLY type insurance coverage we cannot buy across state lines is HEALTH INSURANCE....It has nothing to do with state laws. The prohibition exists at the behest of the insurance companies and the complicit politicians in Washington who allowed health insurers protected markets.
And your opinion of credit card disputes is all wrong.
I have had false information on my credit report changed without delay.
I have disputed two charges and they were both resolved in less than a week.
There is a wide range of consumer protections regarding banking and credit.
I think you need to do some research on how banking laws and laws of incorporation work.
Why incorporate in Delaware? Why Incorporate in Delaware? | Startup Lawyer
Why incorporate in South Dakota?.....Why incorporate in South Dakota
I get it. According to your side, if it's business friendly it MUST be anti consumer.....
Give me a break.

 

[Listening]

Unbelievable bullshytte. Welcome to a modern America. Where health care is guaranteed, affordable, and getting cheaper. No more 45k deaths or 750k bankruptcies (3/4 people who THOUGHT they had good insurance)...

Can't produce any names.

The average debt on those banrkuptcies used to be below the cost of a good used car.

Just posting the same talking points a chimp would post after he is given a banana.

You're a moron.

I hope they spoon feed you this stuff and don't give it to you in the form of a suppository.

Haven't backed up an argument yet.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Half the CONZ on here think taxes are a fricking crime against humanity. What the hell do any of them know about constitutional law? Even less.

The commerce clause is fricking HUGE in the world of SCOTUS.
One farmer lost his case against the fed government and told him he couldn't grow wheat on his own farm for his own use on that farm because it impacted interstate commerce, which was the domain of congress.

That's precedence, bitches. It means something in SCOTUS cases.
Which is a greater abuse of power? Compelling you to buy something as an investment in the entire community, much like taxation, or telling you what you can and cannot do on your own land?

Do some actual reading that's not some right wing retard site and you people might actually LEARN a thing or two about how your country ACTUALLY WORKS instead of how you think it does.

How old are you? 6?

That's an insult to most 6 year olds.

You're right. I apologize to the 6-yr olds I may have offended.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

How is my health insurance INTERSTATE commerce?

My insurance company is based in Boston and my payments to them stay in state, I live in Massachussetts, my doctor is in MA, and I don't do any dealings with my insurance company over state lines.

How is that interstate? I don't see it please enlighten me.

Actually, Health Insurance by law isn't Interstate Commerce. You can't buy policies out of state. The GOP pushed for allowing folks to buy policies across state lines and that got shut down for some very good reasons. The irony here is that if the Democrats had caved on that issue, Health Insurance would have become Interstate Commerce and fallen under the purview of the Federal Government.

allowing sale of health insurance across state lines would go a long way to reducing costs for health insurance.

Indeed it would, but since we don't how can it be regulated under the interstate commerce clause?

Because insurance is just a mechanism for delivering health care, which is definitely conducted across state lines.

Did you really just use that as your justification?

Insurance is a mehcanism to pay for health care coverage.

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

 

[Polk]

Now, by the way, Delaware DOES have some laws concerning usury, too.

CHAPTER 23. INTEREST

But it does look like you have the facts correctly stated relative to South Dakota, Polk.

South Dakota Codified Laws

It may just be that Delaware has such a high rate that it's like they don't have one. I didn't see anything about what the cap was in that link.

 

[Polk]

How is my health insurance INTERSTATE commerce?

My insurance company is based in Boston and my payments to them stay in state, I live in Massachussetts, my doctor is in MA, and I don't do any dealings with my insurance company over state lines.

How is that interstate? I don't see it please enlighten me.

Actually, Health Insurance by law isn't Interstate Commerce. You can't buy policies out of state. The GOP pushed for allowing folks to buy policies across state lines and that got shut down for some very good reasons. The irony here is that if the Democrats had caved on that issue, Health Insurance would have become Interstate Commerce and fallen under the purview of the Federal Government.

Indeed it would, but since we don't how can it be regulated under the interstate commerce clause?

Because insurance is just a mechanism for delivering health care, which is definitely conducted across state lines.

Did you really just use that as your justification?

Insurance is a mehcanism to pay for health care coverage.

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

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

 

[Liability]

Now, by the way, Delaware DOES have some laws concerning usury, too.

CHAPTER 23. INTEREST

But it does look like you have the facts correctly stated relative to South Dakota, Polk.

South Dakota Codified Laws

It may just be that Delaware has such a high rate that it's like they don't have one. I didn't see anything about what the cap was in that link.

Try this from that link:

§ 2301. Legal rate; loans insured by Federal Housing Administration.

(a) Any lender may charge and collect from a borrower interest at any rate agreed upon in writing not in excess of 5% over the Federal Reserve discount rate including any surcharge thereon, and judgments entered after May 13, 1980, shall bear interest at the rate in the contract sued upon. Where there is no expressed contract rate, the legal rate of interest shall be 5% over the Federal Reserve discount rate including any surcharge as of the time from which interest is due; provided, that where the time from which interest is due predates April 18, 1980, the legal rate shall remain as it was at such time.