Affordable Care Act / ObamaCare

[Hingle McCringleberry]

No, you didn't ask me directly but you did start and reply on this topic in a public forum. Thanks for being appreciative of my input. I'd hate to think there were certain viewpoints you would not appreciate.

The topic I started was about predicting how the Supreme Court will rule. Naturally, the armchair constitutional scholars (myself included) can't resist throwing in our two cents.

 

 

Are they expecting a decision next week or is this a down the line thing, I would think they have to ponder this for a while..

[carlfense]

No, you didn't ask me directly but you did start and reply on this topic in a public forum. Thanks for being appreciative of my input. I'd hate to think there were certain viewpoints you would not appreciate.

The topic I started was about predicting how the Supreme Court will rule. Naturally, the armchair constitutional scholars (myself included) can't resist throwing in our two cents.

 

 

Are they expecting a decision next week or is this a down the line thing, I would think they have to ponder this for a while..

Late June I think.

['SkersRule]

I have really no qualms about the government providing health care per se, except for the fact that we can't afford it and if it stands it'll be a crime to not "buy" in. This country is going broke and we can't even afford our yearly federal budget as it is and then morons in Washington DC want to spend even more money? It's so stupid it is beyond words. If the government would have simply said we're going to offer those who do not have health insurance an option to buy into a plan then I sincerely doubt they'd have the opposition to the legislation they do, they being the left.

[TheW0rld]

It is unconstitutional. The issue is the act of compelling an individual to participate in commerce, not in regulating commerce that you are participating in. That's a huge difference and if upheld let's the Federal government basically make you do anything it wants.

[knapplc]

It is unconstitutional. The issue is the act of compelling an individual to participate in commerce, not in regulating commerce that you are participating in. That's a huge difference and if upheld let's the Federal government basically make you do anything it wants.

 

So you're saying both the sitting president and the presumptive other-party candidate to replace him have enacted unconstitutional legislation during their tenures in office? That does not bode well for the country either way.

[TheW0rld]

It is unconstitutional. The issue is the act of compelling an individual to participate in commerce, not in regulating commerce that you are participating in. That's a huge difference and if upheld let's the Federal government basically make you do anything it wants.

 

So you're saying both the sitting president and the presumptive other-party candidate to replace him have enacted unconstitutional legislation during their tenures in office? That does not bode well for the country either way.

 

Yes.

['SkersRule]

It is unconstitutional. The issue is the act of compelling an individual to participate in commerce, not in regulating commerce that you are participating in. That's a huge difference and if upheld let's the Federal government basically make you do anything it wants.

 

Yes. As I noted above in commentary on the Agriculture Act of 1938 cited by carlfense the commerce clause of our Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce. For Congress to think the the commerce clause gives them the authority to tell citizens they have to buy anything be it healthcare or anything else is a blatant stretch of logic to say the least. Obamacare should be ruled unconstitutional and repealed.

[carlfense]

It is unconstitutional. The issue is the act of compelling an individual to participate in commerce, not in regulating commerce that you are participating in. That's a huge difference and if upheld let's the Federal government basically make you do anything it wants.

Could you quote for me where the Constitution says that an individual can't be compelled to participate in commerce?

 

Here's the briefest of summaries of the government's position:

As I’ve explained elsewhere, the argument for the mandate’s constitutionality is very simple. Congress has the power, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate insurance, and so to mandate that insurers cover people with preexisting medical conditions. (The brief does not dispute this.) Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it may choose any convenient means to carry out this end. The mandate is clearly helpful, and may even be absolutely necessary, to Congress’s purpose. Therefore it is constitutional. Full stop.

http://balkin.blogsp...ul-clement.html

[johnnyrodgers20]

It is unconstitutional. The issue is the act of compelling an individual to participate in commerce, not in regulating commerce that you are participating in. That's a huge difference and if upheld let's the Federal government basically make you do anything it wants.

Could you quote for me where the Constitution says that an individual can't be compelled to participate in commerce?

 

Here's the briefest of summaries of the government's position:

As I’ve explained elsewhere, the argument for the mandate’s constitutionality is very simple. Congress has the power, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate insurance, and so to mandate that insurers cover people with preexisting medical conditions. (The brief does not dispute this.) Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it may choose any convenient means to carry out this end. The mandate is clearly helpful, and may even be absolutely necessary, to Congress’s purpose. Therefore it is constitutional. Full stop.

http://balkin.blogsp...ul-clement.html

 

I may not know all the legal angles on this but one sentence does stick out, it says to regulate not force someone to buy insurance. They may have to cover a minority if you have to buy for someone who has a preexisting condition but that sounds to me like an exception to the rule IMO.

[carlfense]

I may not know all the legal angles on this but one sentence does stick out, it says to regulate not force someone to buy insurance. They may have to cover a minority if you have to buy for someone who has a preexisting condition but that sounds to me like an exception to the rule IMO.

Can you try to reword that? I'm not sure what you're saying.

[johnnyrodgers20]

I may not know all the legal angles on this but one sentence does stick out, it says to regulate not force someone to buy insurance. They may have to cover a minority if you have to buy for someone who has a preexisting condition but that sounds to me like an exception to the rule IMO.

Can you try to reword that? I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

I didn't mean a minority as in ethnic minority but for the few who have preexisting conditions, sorry if I am not clear, I hope that helps.

[carlfense]

I may not know all the legal angles on this but one sentence does stick out, it says to regulate not force someone to buy insurance. They may have to cover a minority if you have to buy for someone who has a preexisting condition but that sounds to me like an exception to the rule IMO.

Can you try to reword that? I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

I didn't mean a minority as in ethnic minority but for the few who have preexisting conditions, sorry if I am not clear, I hope that helps.

OK. I still don't follow but I'm trying.

 

You are saying that "they [the insurance companies?] may have to cover a minority [people with preexisting conditions?] if you [who?] have to buy for someone who has a preexisting condition but that sounds like an exception to the rule [what rule?]. . ."

 

Thanks.

[johnnyrodgers20]

I may not know all the legal angles on this but one sentence does stick out, it says to regulate not force someone to buy insurance. They may have to cover a minority if you have to buy for someone who has a preexisting condition but that sounds to me like an exception to the rule IMO.

Can you try to reword that? I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

I didn't mean a minority as in ethnic minority but for the few who have preexisting conditions, sorry if I am not clear, I hope that helps.

OK. I still don't follow but I'm trying.

 

You are saying that "they [the insurance companies?] may have to cover a minority [people with preexisting conditions?] if you [who?] have to buy for someone who has a preexisting condition but that sounds like an exception to the rule [what rule?]. . ."

 

Thanks.

 

 

Not good witht he legal stuff so bear with me. Even if it is unconstitutional ( obama care) they may have a point with the preexisting condition. BO's policy states you can't refuse someone for a preezxisting condition from what I gather, I could be wrong.

[carlfense]

I may not know all the legal angles on this but one sentence does stick out, it says to regulate not force someone to buy insurance. They may have to cover a minority if you have to buy for someone who has a preexisting condition but that sounds to me like an exception to the rule IMO.

Can you try to reword that? I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

I didn't mean a minority as in ethnic minority but for the few who have preexisting conditions, sorry if I am not clear, I hope that helps.

OK. I still don't follow but I'm trying.

 

You are saying that "they [the insurance companies?] may have to cover a minority [people with preexisting conditions?] if you [who?] have to buy for someone who has a preexisting condition but that sounds like an exception to the rule [what rule?]. . ."

 

Thanks.

 

 

Not good witht he legal stuff so bear with me. Even if it is unconstitutional ( obama care) they may have a point with the preexisting condition. BO's policy states you can't refuse someone for a preezxisting condition from what I gather, I could be wrong.

The Act passed by Congress does state that an insurance company can't refuse to cover someone with a preexisting condition. You are correct.

['SkersRule]

The Act passed by Congress does state that an insurance company can't refuse to cover someone with a preexisting condition. You are correct.

 

Right. And again, passing legislation where people with pre-existing conditions must be covered is a far cry from Congress telling people, "Buy this product or we'll fine you and or throw you in jail if you do not." Which is essentially what this healthcare legislation does. This legislation if it is upheld could be the spark that ignites a second civil war.