Will SCOTUS strike down the Affordable Healthcare Law

[srothstein]

Ameer, I do not mean to be argumentative, but just where does the Constitution spell it out in black and white? I can see how there are several different possible interpretations of what is written in the Constitution, at least one of which could justify the whole law.

[Heartland Patriot]

Ameer, I do not mean to be argumentative, but just where does the Constitution spell it out in black and white? I can see how there are several different possible interpretations of what is written in the Constitution, at least one of which could justify the whole law.

I have read many of your posts and learned a lot from some of them. But can you tell me, seriously, that the framers of the Constitution wrote any of it to allow the Federal government to FORCE people to BUY something, ANYTHING? (And I do mean force...if you don't pay, you are fined...if you don't pay the fine, you are arrested...and the men who the government sends to arrest you will have guns...and I think all of us on this forum would consider the potential of having a firearm pointed at you in a coercive manner to be force.) I believe that the Constitution has been stretched to places it should not have been stretched to...but I just don't see how anyone but someone with a socialist/statist (the state is/"the people", meaning the government, are above the individual citizen) mindset could justify that line of thinking. However, I have been accused of being "dogmatic" and I admit to not having any legal training nor am I a "Constitutional scholar" like some in high places have claimed to be... I'm not baiting, I'm really not understanding how that works...but then again, I'm a guy who doesn't see what compels folks to hold the works Karl Marx in any regard, either. (Not making that claim about you in the least...just pointing out the way I think.)

[WildBill]

Remember that they have recognized that travel is a right, which means that the mode is irrelevant legally.

This is getting off track, but where is this right recognized? Why is driving a car not considered a right? Is riding a horse a right?

[Hoosier Daddy]

The United States Constitution, as written, very distinctly limits the Federal Government to the powers explicitly granted to it. If it's not on the list, it's not allowed.

Some judges don't care what's written in the Constitution, believing they have some authority to ignore the constitution and violate the rights of The People. They'll burn for eternity for their sins, but that doesn't help us in this world.

[srothstein]

Remember that they have recognized that travel is a right, which means that the mode is irrelevant legally.

This is getting off track, but where is this right recognized? Why is driving a car not considered a right? Is riding a horse a right?

while we are getting off track, my next post will be right back on track, I promise.

Some of the right to travel cases actually do go back to horseback travel and car licenses. They were decided on the question of banning cars from a city back when the cars were first getting popular. And you need to remember that Texas did not even have a driver's license law until the late 1930s. I don't know how people became convinced that driving is a privilege and not a right, but the history shows it really is a right.

And for an interesting article on the right to travel, check this out: http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/a ... ravel.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. It is written more about residency requirements, but shows one clause of the Constitution that clearly allows for a right to travel.

[srothstein]

Ameer, I do not mean to be argumentative, but just where does the Constitution spell it out in black and white? I can see how there are several different possible interpretations of what is written in the Constitution, at least one of which could justify the whole law.

I have read many of your posts and learned a lot from some of them. But can you tell me, seriously, that the framers of the Constitution wrote any of it to allow the Federal government to FORCE people to BUY something, ANYTHING?

Actually, it clearly allows the government to force certain things. Some were so commonly taken as the government's area that no one questioned it. For example, it clearly allows the government to establish a post office, which really should be a private business IMO.

I agree with you that the Constitution has been stretched way further than it was intended to be. And I agree with Hoosier Daddy that the Constitution limits the government to the powers granted it and anything else is forbidden. But some of those powers are written so vaguely that they can almost guarantee the stretching.

For example, and the relevant part to this discussion, the Constitution allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. The problem is it never defines exactly what is meant by regulate, let alone interstate commerce. The one thing I think is clear is that the government can regulate health insurance. If I am in Texas and I am buying insurance from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which is based in Chicago, I am clearly engaged in interstate commerce. Now, with that specific example, it gets much murkier since BCBS uses local franchisees which are supposedly independent. But the idea is still valid in principle.

So, if they can regulate my purchase of insurance under the specifically delegated power mentioned, what parts of it can they regulate? And since there is no limit to the regulatory power stated, can requiring a purchase be a legitimate requirement? Does it make a difference if there is no criminal penalty for violating the requirement? Remember, the way they got around the possibility of the legal question was to not make it criminal. The government has the power to tax. Can they tax you based on your failure to purchase the product?

All of which gets to the point of my question. Where is it written in the Constitution so clearly as to be considered black and white? All I see are shades of gray.

[karl]

You don't have to have car insurance if you're driving on your own property, correct? I assumed it was only a requirement because you are using a public road, paid for by other taxpayers.

But maybe we'll have to purchase liability health insurance to protect each other from our own missteps.

[Heartland Patriot]

Ameer, I do not mean to be argumentative, but just where does the Constitution spell it out in black and white? I can see how there are several different possible interpretations of what is written in the Constitution, at least one of which could justify the whole law.

I have read many of your posts and learned a lot from some of them. But can you tell me, seriously, that the framers of the Constitution wrote any of it to allow the Federal government to FORCE people to BUY something, ANYTHING?

Actually, it clearly allows the government to force certain things. Some were so commonly taken as the government's area that no one questioned it. For example, it clearly allows the government to establish a post office, which really should be a private business IMO.

I agree with you that the Constitution has been stretched way further than it was intended to be. And I agree with Hoosier Daddy that the Constitution limits the government to the powers granted it and anything else is forbidden. But some of those powers are written so vaguely that they can almost guarantee the stretching.

For example, and the relevant part to this discussion, the Constitution allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. The problem is it never defines exactly what is meant by regulate, let alone interstate commerce. The one thing I think is clear is that the government can regulate health insurance. If I am in Texas and I am buying insurance from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which is based in Chicago, I am clearly engaged in interstate commerce. Now, with that specific example, it gets much murkier since BCBS uses local franchisees which are supposedly independent. But the idea is still valid in principle.

So, if they can regulate my purchase of insurance under the specifically delegated power mentioned, what parts of it can they regulate? And since there is no limit to the regulatory power stated, can requiring a purchase be a legitimate requirement? Does it make a difference if there is no criminal penalty for violating the requirement? Remember, the way they got around the possibility of the legal question was to not make it criminal. The government has the power to tax. Can they tax you based on your failure to purchase the product?

All of which gets to the point of my question. Where is it written in the Constitution so clearly as to be considered black and white? All I see are shades of gray.

But don't they toss people in jail for not paying their taxes? In the end, its still force. Also, what if you had an insurance company that operated only WITHIN the state? Can they regulate that as "interstate commerce"? There are too many things about this whole deal that stick in my craw...the end result being that they want EVERYONE who cannot pay completely out of pocket for all of their healthcare, which is most Americans who cannot, will end up in what amounts to an American NHS...everyone touts the Brit's NHS as a model...but they've got PROBLEMS, big ones...and with our nation being larger than theirs, the problems will be bigger, too. It really gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.

[The Annoyed Man]

There are two BIG problems with the healthcare law.........not to mention that Government has no business being the nation's medical provider......but that's a whole other issue tied to the fact that the democrat party is composed primarily of illiberal little control freaks who are crypto communists and want to tear down the nation—controlling access to healthcare being probably the most effective way to do that....

1) Mandatory car insurance cannot be even remotely compared to mandatory health insurance because you are not required to own a car. But mandatory health insurance requires you to be insured simply because you have a pulse and respirations. Nobody argues whether or not the government has the authority to intrude itself into the stream of commerce. Even though the Commerce clause is routinely abused, there are some legitimate exercises of power which are legitimately sanctioned by that clause. However, never before in the history of this nation has the government required a citizen to enter the stream of commerce simply for no other reason than that of being alive. That has to be unconstitutional, and it is definitely contrary to the notion of personal freedom.

2) In order to enforce the law, the IRS has been authorized to assess a monthly fine of $225.00 (if I recall the amount correctly) against those who have not purchased insurance. Now, although I am against the idea of socialized medicine, the sting of this fine would be less obnoxious if it at least bought me a healthcare benefit. But it doesn't. It is purely punishment for not having insurance. There is no benefit to it, except that the state makes an additional $2700.00 per year off of me.............for breathing. In other words, it is a life tax—a tax for living and using up oxygen while committing the cardinal sin of not being a wealthy democrat donor.

No commercial insurance program will cover me for less than about $1200 per month, and the coverage is lousy if I can get it. Most insurance companies won't touch me with a ten foot pole. The state's high risk pool would cost me $628/month this year. That is a total annual premium of $7536. That policy has a $7500 annual deductible, and $5000 out of pocket limit......and it doesn't cover any of my pre-existing conditions for the first year. That means that I have to spend $7500+$5000+$7536 ($20,036 total) during the first year BEFORE I get to see any benefits, and after the coverage actually kicks in, I have to spend another $20,036 per year in order to get any benefits at all.

The federal plan is only a little bit better, but do I want the federal government mixed up in even more of my life? No. But even if I was OK with it, the premium alone is more than I can afford by a factor of at least 2. So the bottom line is that I can't get coverage at a rate that I can afford. Since I'm not a rich man, I get to pay the federal government $225 of punishment money every month. The democrats who voted for this are fascists. The republicans that voted for it are even worse. ALL of them are completely out of touch with America and the lives of real people. Anyone who voted for this abomination needs to be thrown out of office. The president who pushed it needs to go.

If SCOTUS will not overturn the law, then we are completely lost as a nation because there will be no end to what the government can require you to buy, and if you can't afford it, then you'll either have to pay punitive fines, or you'll have to become a ward of the state. I love America, but I am beginning to hate our government with a deep and abiding passion. If this law stands, the government will have lost every last vestige of moral authority as far as I am concerned.

[The Annoyed Man]

And incidentally, my wife's insurance policy, which we pay for out of pocket, shot up $100 more per month within a couple of weeks of the healthcare law's passage. Since then, it has gone up a couple of times again, and it is now approaching a price which we can no longer afford. So in the next year, neither of us will have insurance, and she is in perfect health for her age (early 50s).

Democrats killed healthcare coverage in this country for anybody over about 50 years old. I hate them all for that. They are literally the domestic enemies the oath refers to.

[rwg3]

I am of two minds on this issue. First I am uncomfortable with government mandates on all citizens, but I can understand that there are cases that require such mandates for the overall maintenance of the Union. Secondly having been involved for years in the healthcare game (and it is such) I applaud the step towards finding a solution to the healthcare funding issue nationwide. I am in no way defending the bill as written in it's entirety, but do support a concept by which the federal government is attempting to create a payor source for madated healthcare provisions. To put it simply, if hospitals are required to provide care to all who show up in their emergency rooms regardless of ability to pay, then there should be a payment source to reimburse for this service.

Given the inability of our legislators to agree to fund that which they mandate, and an unwillingness to do away with the service provision requirement, this bill was a first step towards rectifying this mess. Is it perfect or even good? No, can it be improved, surely. In following the furor that this created, if we look to whose ox was gored, and eliminate for the moment the pure objection on a Constitutional basis, I believe you will find that the private insurors are funding most of the protest publicity. Simply put they do not want any change to a system that has profitted them so handsomely for many years. The most interesting thing to me is that the leaders of the nations largest for profit healthcare and hospital organizations, including Sen. Frist (Family created and owns a big chunk of HCA), who are predominately republican and wealthy are strangely silent on this issue. They know that this will go a long way to redress a problem that has plagued us all. The reality is we are all currently paying for the uninsured's healthcare. This at least asks those who recieve the benefits to participate in paying for them. If I believe in personal responsibility then, then I believe it should apply to all.

This is a hugely complex public policy issue that has ramifications which touch many aspects of American life. I wish it could be explored in a non-partisan method with the goal of improving the country for all. While I am at it I, also wish I was 6'5" tall, looked like Clark Gable and had Bill Gates' money.

[74novaman]

To put it simply, if hospitals are required to provide care to all who show up in their emergency rooms regardless of ability to pay, then there should be a payment source to reimburse for this service.

Agreed.

if we look to whose ox was gored, and eliminate for the moment the pure objection on a Constitutional basis, I believe you will find that the private insurors are funding most of the protest publicity.

I'm not a huge fan of overlooking Constitutionally based objections. It is supposed to be the Supreme law of the land. If it is not constitutional, it shouldn't be a law. If we don't like how its written, we have a neat little process we can use to introduce amendments.

The reality is we are all currently paying for the uninsured's healthcare. This at least asks those who recieve the benefits to participate in paying for them. If I believe in personal responsibility then, then I believe it should apply to all.

This is a hugely complex public policy issue that has ramifications which touch many aspects of American life. I wish it could be explored in a non-partisan method with the goal of improving the country for all. While I am at it I, also wish I was 6'5" tall, looked like Clark Gable and had Bill Gates' money.

The problem is you cannot legislate personal responsibility. People are either responsible...or they aren't. It is a complex system, and we should work to find solutions. However, I feel that this bill was written specifically by the democrats to cripple private insurance companies. Then, when they begin to jack up rates to cover the extra costs they are expected to shoulder, the President and democrats can step in and say "See? We told you that you can't trust those greedy private companies, we have to institute universal, govt paid for and controlled healthcare", which is what they've wanted to do since the 90s.

The problem of course, is they are creating the situations in which private companies aren't able to compete, then blaming capitalism instead of their bureaucratic mess thats really causing problems.

I think any realistic and honest approach to healthcare reform must include some discussion of tort reform. But, considering how much money lawyers funnel to our politicians (though they favor donating to democrats) that may not happen.

My. 02 on the matter anyway.

As my wife is in school to become a doctor, I am VERY concerned with what the govt is going to do to healthcare in this country. I just hope she's able to do the job she's dreamed of without too much govt hassle.

[gringo pistolero]

To put it simply, if hospitals are required to provide care to all who show up in their emergency rooms regardless of ability to pay, then there should be a payment source to reimburse for this service.

That should have been included with the mandate. However, the lack of funding is a more compelling argument to remove the Federal mandate than to unconstitutionally allocate Federal taxes for something that's not in the U.S. Constitution.

General police power properly lies with the individual States, not the United States.

[Glenn61]

I haven't slept well since this law has been passed. The current administration is trying to push most if not all the active duty/retired personnel out of Tricare to his more expensive plan. He and his party have never taken care of the those who have protected his freedom. He could care less about anybody but I bet he'll get his medical free for life. How do they get away with this?

[Lambda Force]

He promised hope and change. There was a lot of change. So much change that hope is one of the only things many have left.