Obamacare mandate is precedent setting, in a BIG way

[M.D. Rawlings]

Flashback: Pelosi on Obamacare's Constitutionality: ‘Are You Serious?
Friday, August 12, 2011
By Matt Cover and Michael W. Chapman
CNSNEWS.COM

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm still looking for clear explanation as to how the mandate can be a civil rights violation at the federal level,

but not at the state level.

Can anyone give me some examples of where states are allowed to pass laws that violate federally protected civil rights???

You are correct that a civil rights violation is a violation at any government level. But for some strange reason you refuse to consider other grounds upon which the mandate may be deemed unconstitutional, i.e. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to enact such a mandate.

Maybe I've been swayed by the fact that ever since it passed every rightwing Obama hater on the planet has been screaming that it's a violation of their civil rights.

It looks like a tax to me. It looks the government is imposing a healthcare tax, but allowing an exemption for those with their own qualifying healthcare. I know it's not worded that way,

but de facto that's what it looks like to me.

 

[Ravi]

How?

Because taxpayers pay for the uninsured. Therefore there is nothing constitutional against imposing a tax penalty on the uninsured to pay back the taxpayers.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The taxpayers pay for everything. There is nothing in the Constitution that says government can coerce people because the government spends money on them. The government pays for grandma's and grandpa's retirement. Does that give the government the authority to force them into a nursing home? Nope.

And my other point was just as valid as manifold's. You can choose to go through life without a car and you can choose to go through life without a job. Be a shareholder. Play the market, etc.

Yes, you can, but when government imposes that "choice" on you, it's not a free choice. It's coercion.

I can hold a gun on you and give a "choice" of handing over all your money or dying. According to you, that's a free choice.

However, that is the liberal conception of freedom: do what the government tells you or die.

You're probably one of the idiots that loved this plan back when Clinton was president and it was the Republicans idea.

 

[Modbert]

The more I think about it, perhaps it is a straight up civil rights violation (as well as Romneycare in MA).

Sure there are existing examples of states imposing other mandates, such as seat-belt laws and auto insurance. However, theoretically at least, those mandates can be avoided by not using an automobile. The Obamacare and Romneycare mandates cannot be avoided while remaining a resident. These mandates apply to everyone simply by virtue of their being. hmmm...

I think you mean civil liberties. Civil rights while related to civil liberties are something else.

 

[dblack]

Maybe I've been swayed by the fact that ever since it passed every rightwing Obama hater on the planet has been screaming that it's a violation of their civil rights.

It looks like a tax to me. It looks the government is imposing a healthcare tax, but allowing an exemption for those with their own qualifying healthcare. I know it's not worded that way,

but de facto that's what it looks like to me.

That pretty much what it is. It's a tax increase/incentive to bailout the insurance industry. Blatant corporatist sellout.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Maybe I've been swayed by the fact that ever since it passed every rightwing Obama hater on the planet has been screaming that it's a violation of their civil rights.

It looks like a tax to me. It looks the government is imposing a healthcare tax, but allowing an exemption for those with their own qualifying healthcare. I know it's not worded that way,

but de facto that's what it looks like to me.

That pretty much what it is. It's a tax increase/incentive to bailout the insurance industry. Blatant corporatist sellout.

This is a very odd take. Something's amiss here. Most on the right were against hc, most on the left were for hc. How would the left be for something that is a corporate sellout?

 

[dblack]

How would the left be for something that is a corporate sellout?

Hehe... isn't it rich?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem here is many perceive Commerce Clause regulatory activity as some sort of violation of ‘individual rights,’ such as the ‘right’ to own your own business and run it as you see fit, to sell what you want to whomever, wherever, free from government regulation – even if what you’re dong is harmful to one's employees, the consumer, or the market overall.

Needless to say this is an incorrect perception, the Court has been consistent with regard to its interpretation of the Clause, giving Congress broad authority to regulate markets.

In US v Darby (1941), where the Court upheld Federal law prohibiting unfair wage and labor practices, the majority ruled that Congress has the authority to, under the Commerce Clause, regulate activities that ‘it may conceive to be injurious to the public health, morals or welfare, even though the state has not sought to regulate their use.’

Further, ‘[t]he motive and purpose of a regulation of interstate commerce are matters for the legislative judgment upon the exercise of which the Constitution places no restriction, and over which the courts are given no control.’

The issue of Congress’ improper use of the Commerce Clause was addressed in United States v. Lopez (1995), where the Court held that the Commerce Clause may not be used by Congress to enact ‘police powers,’ this was reaffirmed in US v Morrison (2000) with regard to punitive civil damages.

And since Lopez/Morrison doesn’t apply to the ACA, as its ‘penalty’ is neither criminal nor punitive (indeed, the Act itself prohibits the IRS from placing liens on property, for example), it is indeed Constitutional. The actual ‘penalty,’ therefore, should one ultimately refuse to purchase health insurance, would be the possible exclusion from purchasing insurance at a later date should it be needed.

 

[Rinata]

I'd like to know how some of you people think medical services are paid for for people with no health insurance. Anybody that feels bad enough will go to an emergency room to be treated. Treatment often includes surgery, drugs, xrays, radiology, blood, doctors, nurses, room and board, and so on. Do you know who pays for it???

 

[Rinata]

Last time i got hurt i paid, how dare anyone suggest because i got hurt you paid, damn you to
hell if you think i wont fight any mandate, freedom isnt free, i swear to God as my witness

those that died for my freedoms will not have died in vain!

Not everybody can or does pay. And there are lots of people.

 

[dblack]

... the Court has been consistent with regard to its interpretation of the Clause, giving Congress broad authority to regulate markets.

Yes. We are aware this is the status quo. Again, we think the status quo is bunk and needs to be changed. Droning on about precedent won't change that.

 

[dblack]

I'd like to know how some of you people think medical services are paid for for people with no health insurance. Anybody that feels bad enough will go to an emergency room to be treated. Treatment often includes surgery, drugs, xrays, radiology, blood, doctors, nurses, room and board, and so on. Do you know who pays for it???

Do you? I hear a lot of chicken little fear-mongering that tells us that treatment of the uninsured at emergency rooms is THE significant factor in spiraling health care prices. If it is, we should end the practice. But I suspect this is much ado about nothing. I've been uninsured for long stretches, and went to the hospital during those periods. And I paid my bills. Took me a little longer than someone who could afford insurance, but the hospitals sure as hell didn't just give me free care. I suspect it's this way for most people.

Truth be told, it's the fact that most of us are over-insured that is driving out-of-control health care inflation. Blaming the uninsured seems bizarre and perverse.

 

[Rinata]

I'd like to know how some of you people think medical services are paid for for people with no health insurance. Anybody that feels bad enough will go to an emergency room to be treated. Treatment often includes surgery, drugs, xrays, radiology, blood, doctors, nurses, room and board, and so on. Do you know who pays for it???

Do you? I hear a lot of chicken little fear-mongering that tells us that treatment of the uninsured at emergency rooms is THE significant factor in spiraling health care prices. If it is, we should end the practice. But I suspect this is much ado about nothing. I've been uninsured for long stretches, and went to the hospital during those periods. And I paid my bills. Took me a little longer than someone who could afford insurance, but the hospitals sure as hell didn't just give me free care. I suspect it's this way for most people.

Truth be told, it's the fact that most of us are over-insured that is driving out-of-control health care inflation. Blaming the uninsured seems bizarre and perverse.

Good, Lord, put your gun down!!! I am simply stating a fact. I worked for a major health insurance company for many years. I know what I'm saying.

 

[daveman]

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

If the socialists can point to another nation's healthcare as a success, it's germane. If someone points out another nation's healthcare failures, it's not germane.

Right, USMB socialists?

 

[daveman]

Why would a state have the power if the federal government doesn't? If it's unconstitutional, how does become constitutional at the state level?

 

[dblack]

Good, Lord, put your gun down!!! I am simply stating a fact. I worked for a major health insurance company for many years. I know what I'm saying.

I don't even own a gun!

But I do find EMTALA a particularly bad excuse for the individual mandate. It's like "well, see, we passed a questionable law that turned out to have unintended consequences, so we need another questionable law to address the unintended consequences of the previous debacle. But this time, it will be ok. Honest."

 

[daveman]

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

SCOTUS decides what is unconstitutional for the federal government.

It only weighs in on state law in special circumstances.

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

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

That explains Carby's ignorance. He wants an all-powerful central government.

Weak people usually do.

 

[daveman]

Maybe I've been swayed by the fact that ever since it passed every rightwing Obama hater on the planet has been screaming that it's a violation of their civil rights.

It looks like a tax to me. It looks the government is imposing a healthcare tax, but allowing an exemption for those with their own qualifying healthcare. I know it's not worded that way,

but de facto that's what it looks like to me.

That pretty much what it is. It's a tax increase/incentive to bailout the insurance industry. Blatant corporatist sellout.

This is a very odd take. Something's amiss here. Most on the right were against hc, most on the left were for hc. How would the left be for something that is a corporate sellout?

Obama told them to.

 

[Ravi]

Maybe I've been swayed by the fact that ever since it passed every rightwing Obama hater on the planet has been screaming that it's a violation of their civil rights.

It looks like a tax to me. It looks the government is imposing a healthcare tax, but allowing an exemption for those with their own qualifying healthcare. I know it's not worded that way,

but de facto that's what it looks like to me.

That pretty much what it is. It's a tax increase/incentive to bailout the insurance industry. Blatant corporatist sellout.

This is a very odd take. Something's amiss here. Most on the right were against hc, most on the left were for hc. How would the left be for something that is a corporate sellout?

It might benefit insurance companies, just as seat belt laws benefit seat belt companies. This remains to be seen.

But the trade-off is that it will also force those that don't have insurance to contribute to their medical bills through taxation.

 

[Immanuel]

That pretty much what it is. It's a tax increase/incentive to bailout the insurance industry. Blatant corporatist sellout.

This is a very odd take. Something's amiss here. Most on the right were against hc, most on the left were for hc. How would the left be for something that is a corporate sellout?

It might benefit insurance companies, just as seat belt laws benefit seat belt companies. This remains to be seen.

But the trade-off is that it will also force those that don't have insurance to contribute to their medical bills through taxation.

Geez, that is just great. Those who have been down on their luck since Obama took office had better be ready for a double whammy.

Immie