Anyone listening to the S.CT oral arguments on Obamacare? (Update: SCOTUS upholds Affordable Care Act)

[Mr. Sparkle]

Interesting stuff. One of the better discourses on the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment that I've seen, and in pretty easy to understand terms.

Its a big mistake to put any real weight on who 'wins' at oral argument, but it sounds like the Solicitor General had a bad day yesterday - Candidate Obama seems to be ahead of President Obama on points going into the final round. Personally, I would vote to strike down the mandate but if I had to bet, I would say it will be upheld.

[IntenseSaint]

Long ago I posted about the mandate being unconstitutional. You cannot mandate citizens buy something from a for-profit company. If we had a single payer option, then yes.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by IntenseSaint

Long ago I posted about the mandate being unconstitutional. You cannot mandate citizens buy something from a for-profit company. If we had a single payer option, then yes.

How do states mandate that people carry auto insurance?

If I pay cash for my car, I'm under no obligation to a lien holder to protect their investment.. I could be the world's safest driver, but that doesn't protect me or others from an uninsured motorist..

And by the same token, it's a reasonable expectation that every person at some point in life is going to need healthcare.. So the same logic applies.. Uninsured patients affect the cost for everyone..

[IntenseSaint]

Originally Posted by Beast

How do states mandate that people carry auto insurance?

If I pay cash for my car, I'm under no obligation to a lien holder to protect their investment.. I could be the world's safest driver, but that doesn't protect me or others from an uninsured motorist..

And by the same token, it's a reasonable expectation that every person at some point in life is going to need healthcare.. So the same logic applies.. Uninsured patients affect the cost for everyone..

This silly argument was addressed so many times before. The health care mandate would have you as a U.S. citizen buy a product simply for living in the country. Auto insurance is different because you are chosing to purchase a vehicle.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by IntenseSaint

This silly argument was addressed so many times before. The health care mandate would have you as a U.S. citizen buy a product simply for living in the country. Auto insurance is different because you are chosing to purchase a vehicle.

I don't find it a silly argument at all..

In reality, simply stated, we are all burdens upon each other.. The cost of healthcare and insurance is one of those ways, and one of the most direct ways.. There's zero chance you can guarantee that you never need to visit a doctor, never take a trip to an ER, never go to an urgent care facility, never need some sort of medicine..

Why do you think it is that Medicare spending has spiked so much recently? It's the baby-boomer generation reaching retirement age..

[IntenseSaint]

Originally Posted by Beast

In reality, simply stated, we are all burdens upon each other.. The cost of healthcare and insurance is one of those ways, and one of the most direct ways.. There's zero chance you can guarantee that you never need to visit a doctor, never take a trip to an ER, never go to an urgent care facility, never need some sort of medicine..

Why do you think it is that Medicare spending has spiked so much recently? It's the baby-boomer generation reaching retirement age..

I agree with you there, and that is why we need a single payer option. The government does not have the power to tell citizens they must purchase a product from a for-profit company just because you are simply a resident of this country.

[JLaneSaints]

Originally Posted by Beast

How do states mandate that people carry auto insurance?

They don't. They mandate that auto-owners cary auto insurance. If you don't own a car, you don't have to buy insurance.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Beast

How do states mandate that people carry auto insurance?

If I pay cash for my car, I'm under no obligation to a lien holder to protect their investment.. I could be the world's safest driver, but that doesn't protect me or others from an uninsured motorist..

And by the same token, it's a reasonable expectation that every person at some point in life is going to need healthcare.. So the same logic applies.. Uninsured patients affect the cost for everyone..

States have the power to implement a mandate for both health and auto insurance (though they are quite different cases, as pointed out in subsequent posts) , and several have done so - the point being that the FEDERAL government does not have that power. Basically the 10th Amendment says that unless the Constitution grants the Federal Government a certain power, then that power resides with the States, or the People.

The Feds are arguing that the mandate is appropriate federal power because everyone eventually engages in the 'commerce' of health care whether they want to or not, so they can use the mandate as a regulation of interstate commerce. The opponents argue that (1) that's not necessarily true, depending on how you define the market being regulated - is it medical services or insurance? and (2) you cannot compel commerce in order to regulate it, because then you've given the Federal Government a blank check to compel activity - thus the 'broccoli, gym memberships, funeral insurance' examples. You could expand the universe of hypotheticals to include compelled medical treatments such as birth control, etc. I've mangled the two arguments in order to keep it brief, but that's the gist of it.

The Federal Government has Constitutional limits on what it can do in the name of interstate commerce. The boundary has been stretched to near invisibility over the last 50 years - this could be the starting point for reeling it back in.

Which isnt to say that healthcare isnt screwed up or that there arent other ways to accomplish similar things as Obamacare - such as making it into a tax. But Congress didnt go that route - they may have to simply try again.

[IntenseSaint]

Justice Kennedy said something during this that resonated with me. He called Obamacare "unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce.”

Affirmative Duty is the phrase. The Gov't is essentially forcing you to buy something in order to keep the price down.

Essentially they're penalizing citizens for NOT making a purchase.

That's strikes me as wrong.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by IntenseSaint

I agree with you there, and that is why we need a single payer option. The government does not have the power to tell citizens they must purchase a product from a for-profit company just because you are simply a resident of this country.

I agree with the single payer option..

[Cosmic201]

I think it's gonna be upholded.
The 4 liberal justices are obviously for it by the tone of their questions.
And 3 conservative judges are lock step against it.

There are 2 justices who are asking tough questions from both sides and only needs to vote to uphold the law.

[IntenseSaint]

Originally Posted by Cosmic201

I think it's gonna be upholded.
The 4 liberal justices are obviously for it by the tone of their questions.
And 3 conservative judges are lock step against it.

There are 2 justices who are asking tough questions from both sides and only needs to vote to uphold the law.

Do you really think it's constitutional for the government to mandate we purchase something from a for-profit company for the simple fact of being a citizen?

This isn't at all about liberal or conservative here, this is about constitutionality. Obama messed up when he let health insurance companies get in on the action in writing this bill, you don't think they love this. It would FORCE people to buy insurance, they love this bill.

[krushing]

Originally Posted by JLaneSaints

They don't. They mandate that auto-owners cary auto insurance. If you don't own a car, you don't have to buy insurance.

Even more then that. You can own a car and drive on your own private property as much as you want and have no insurence. Its only when you use a public road that that law kicks in.

[saintfan-n-alex]

Originally Posted by Beast

I don't find it a silly argument at all..

In reality, simply stated, we are all burdens upon each other.. The cost of healthcare and insurance is one of those ways, and one of the most direct ways.. There's zero chance you can guarantee that you never need to visit a doctor, never take a trip to an ER, never go to an urgent care facility, never need some sort of medicine..

Why do you think it is that Medicare spending has spiked so much recently? It's the baby-boomer generation reaching retirement age..

Full coverage auto insurance is only required to protect the lender, I'm not even sure its a law it could be a universal policy among lenders - if you total a car that the lender hold title on they get the money not the car "owner" - the lender is true owner as the hold title

Liability is to protect the other driver if you ate at fault

If you pay cash for your car you can carry liability only and face the total loss should you hit a tree etc.

Or as said above you can not own a car

I think it's 50/50 it's all up to one justice - and it is a change in federal power - that's allot of pressure on one person on a law that many polls state Americans don't want

[RussTKD]

Originally Posted by krushing

Even more then that. You can own a car and drive on your own private property as much as you want and have no insurence. Its only when you use a public road that that law kicks in.

Not to mention that you only have to purchase liability insurance, so it's not even your car that's covered. It's the guy you'd hit.