Thread: Anyone want to predict the outcome of the health care case?

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Another question of interest: How come Medicare and Social Security haven't already been struck down in the same way?

Good question but probably due to a combination of issues. Poor challenges to those laws, unfavorable responses (in constitutional terms) by the courts, a political unwillingness to remove Medicare and Social Security fearing the fallout, etc. Just because the right conditions have not occurred for there to be a challenge to those laws does not mean there is not one to be made. The comment above on private markets vs government services is a good one to build on based on tax issues.

In any case, if you look at the internet and newspapers today, liberals are already predicting defeat. The government's head lawyer screwed the pooch and even the liberal justices were getting frustrated. They even had to help him out, because they so badly want to vote for the government. But he's making it impossible for them because he's so inept, even with coaching from Breyer and Ginsburg.

Originally Posted by Haplo

Actually, I don't think that they will find the mandate unconstitutional.



The government forces us to pay taxes, which it then uses to purchase other things with, therefore, they have mandated that we purchase those things. When they require that products meet certain standards, they require us to buy those products instead of the other substitutes.

If the Court were to say that the health-insurance mandate is unconstitutional, how would that not naturally extend to all other things that the government mandates that we buy?

The mandate may be bad policy, but that is not the Court's purview.

Thats a rediculous argument from Ginsburg. Social Security isnt insurance, thats just the title. Theres no risk reward assesment, and everyone gets it whether they need it or not. Its a tax to benefit program. You also dont buy emmisions control. The govt requires manufactures to use them, but they arent required to produce cars. And its a HUGE stretch to claim taxes which the govt spends on subsidies are a mandate. That should be obvious. The difference here is a person is being specifically required to buy a product from a private company. If you were required to buy a IRA or a car, then Ginsberg would be right.

No, I dont endorse the things above.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

I want a conservative here to argue this point: people who don't buy broccoli are not shifting any economic burden on people who do buy broccoli. However, in health care, people who don't have insurance are shifting an economic burden on those of us who do have insurance at the point of sale.

Doesn't that make the health care market different than the market for food or cell phones?

Easy, I said it above. The only reason the uninsured shift the burden to those with insurance is because the govt requires health care providers to take care of the uninsured. The root cause is govt, not the uninsured. So, if you were to simply refuse service to those who cant pay, there would be no shift of cost to those who can pay. And thus no effect on commerce.

Essentially the govt mandated commerce, then said they can regulate it by mandating more commerce. They caused the problem so they could apply a solution.

A fundamental mistake that many liberals are making in their arguments is that two laws that achieve the same effect are both constitutional if one definitely is.

Paul krugman made the argument today that since single payer would be constitutional, obviously Obamacare would be. But the Constitution doesn't concern itself with effects, it concerns itself with process. You can achieve universal health care through Congress' enumerated powers. You cannot achieve universal health care by any means necessary and then call it necessary and proper. that's where the liberal legal arguments go badly wrong, in assuming that regulating the health care market is an enumerated power, and thus Congress can do literally anything it wants in the process of such regulation.

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

So what's stopping the Republican controlled House from starting impeachment proceedings? Is it because that line of thought is a load of bull or are Republicans in the House are bunch of cowards?


Same question I asked 9aces. Why doesn't the Republican controlled House do something?

You answered it yourself, because they are cowards. That and of course they need a majority in the Senate to convict, but even when they had that in the Clinton years they lacked the balls to pull the trigger.

I'm fairly certain that come November The Obama will get beat, the GOP will get a Senate majority and a larger House majority, and in 2013-14 they still won't make the bold moves necessary to eliminate the threat of progressive judges from the Supreme Court. The court has long held that Congress has nearly unlimited power and in return Congress has granted the same to the Court. They scratch each other's backs as the Constitution slowly fades into history...

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Another question of interest: How come Medicare and Social Security haven't already been struck down in the same way?

They should be. That and 90% of what the feds do.

Heres a perfect example of the circular logic the govt is using. They require insurers to accept children who have a known condition. Since this know condition will cost more money than the insurer takes in, they have to spread the cost to healthy insureres. So the govt argues that this creates commerce so they can regulate it, but they created the conditions which created the commerce. Even if they dont require insuring children with preexisting conditions, they require health care providers to take care of them pro bono, which raises cost (commerce) and therefore the govt can regulate it.

So basically the govt does something unconstitutional, to create constitutional authority.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

I want a conservative here to argue this point: people who don't buy broccoli are not shifting any economic burden on people who do buy broccoli. However, in health care, people who don't have insurance are shifting an economic burden on those of us who do have insurance at the point of sale.

Doesn't that make the health care market different than the market for food or cell phones?

No one owes anyone healthcare or any other product or service. If someone doesn't have health insurance then that's their mistake not mine. Instead of buying a big screen tv maybe these uninsured folks should think about getting a little health insurance instead. And another suggestion is for folks who don't bother with health insurance stop drinking, doing drugs, smoking and don't be such a fucking fat ass. Everywhere I go now days I see fat asses everywhere puffing on a cigarette.

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

I would hope that the h.c. mandate is ruled unconstitutional so that paying mandatory Social Security tax and Medicare Taxes are also ruled unconstitutional.

But you know that the government is not going to all of a sudden rule that at least half of the things it does are unconstitutional. You may hope for that, but if you have any brains at all, you know it's not going to happen.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Thats a rediculous argument from Ginsburg. Social Security isnt insurance, thats just the title. Theres no risk reward assesment, and everyone gets it whether they need it or not. Its a tax to benefit program. You also dont buy emmisions control. The govt requires manufactures to use them, but they arent required to produce cars. And its a HUGE stretch to claim taxes which the govt spends on subsidies are a mandate. That should be obvious. The difference here is a person is being specifically required to buy a product from a private company. If you were required to buy a IRA or a car, then Ginsberg would be right.

No, I dont endorse the things above.

Ok.

So instead I'll create a new tax, and a new division of the IRS to collect it. We'll call it the "You Must Have This Health Insurance Tax." The IRS will take your money, again, and then they will give it to the health provider of their choice on your behalf.

It's no longer a mandate, just mandatory.

And on top of it, I get to put a few more of my union buddies into cushy, do-nothing federal bureaucracy jobs in return for their votes. I like your objections . . . :p

Originally Posted by Haplo

But you know that the government is not going to all of a sudden rule that at least half of the things it does are unconstitutional. You may hope for that, but if you have any brains at all, you know it's not going to happen.



Ok.

So instead I'll create a new tax, and a new division of the IRS to collect it. We'll call it the "You Must Have This Health Insurance Tax." The IRS will take your money, again, and then they will give it to the health provider of their choice on your behalf.

It's no longer a mandate, just mandatory.

And on top of it, I get to put a few more of my union buddies into cushy, do-nothing federal bureaucracy jobs in return for their votes. I like your objections . . . :p

Thats exactly what the democrats want. Single payer healthcare. This middle step is just that, a middle step. Its probably designed to fail so they can upgrade to total govt control.

I think it will be a split decision and that they will try to just take out the mandate part and once again overstep their bounds as the SCOUS. They need to strike the entire bill and leave the legislation to the congress.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

I think it will be a split decision and that they will try to just take out the mandate part and once again overstep their bounds as the SCOUS. They need to strike the entire bill and leave the legislation to the congress.

Severability is a real concern here with "Obamacare" the way these arguments are being presented. At least with the audio that was released thus far. I suspect, as you, they will just 5-4 strike down the individual mandate portion of the legislation leaving the rest to be corrected by future legislation.