Affordable Care Act / ObamaCare

[carlfense]

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.

 

Except it doesn't say anything about enforcement through jailing.

 

This legislation if it is upheld could be the spark that ignites a second civil war.

[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.

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

 

This is all that Congress gets to do.

 

Article I - Section 8

 

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

 

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

 

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

 

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

 

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

 

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

 

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

 

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

To provide and maintain a Navy;

 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

 

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[krill]

I just love that when faced with the stark reality that the United States unquestionably has the lowest cost / benefit ratio and highest rate of uninsured people in the industrialized world, even worse than many emerging economies, the debate about health care reform is not about efficacy, but how well you can pretend to be an expert in constitutional law. It's like arguing about who's turn it is to do dishes as your house burns down.

[strigori]

This is not much different than social security is. Congress says you will pay into a retirement program, period. It gets taken before you ever touch the money. If you are self employed, you pay in or else. And it is constitutional.

 

This is a step to single payer universal health care, just too bad we didn't get that from the get go.

[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?

 

This is all that Congress gets to do.

 

Article I - Section 8

 

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

 

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

 

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

 

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

 

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

 

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

 

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

 

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

To provide and maintain a Navy;

 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

 

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

No arguments there. See a few posts up how the ACA fits comfortably within those powers.

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

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.

Ding-Ding! The Commerce Act's original purpose was primarily a means to eliminate trade barriers among the states following our Declaration of Independence from Britain. Almost immediately however, Congress began pressing beyond those powers granted in Article I. The court merely has to decide that an activity can have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, for that activity to fall under the power granted by the Commerce Clause. This is evidenced by a little known U.S. Supreme ruling in Wickard v. Filburn. Mr. Filburn was a small wheat farmer in Ohio. The Department of Agriculture had set production quotas. Mr. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his government allotment. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use. He was fined anyway. The Court reasoned that had he not grown the extra wheat he would have had to purchase wheat; therefore, he was indirectly affecting interstate commerce.

 

The debate centers on whether the Federal government can require citizens to purchase healthcare insurance by 2014 or face a tax penalty under the Individual Mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Justification for the mandate is believed to lie in the commerce clause, but many opponents of the ACA have claimed it steps outside the reach of the clause.

 

Court opinions have disagreed over whether failure to purchase insurance can be considered an economic activity that affects interstate commerce. On August 12, 2011, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Individual Mandate portion unconstitutional, stating that Congress had exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage.

[carlfense]

This is evidenced by a little known U.S. Supreme ruling in Wickard v. Filburn.

I don't think that Wickard is little known . . .

[carlfense]

The tea leaf readers seem to think that the law will be struck down after today's oral arguments.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

The tea leaf readers seem to think that the law will be struck down after today's oral arguments.

Just came here to say that.. Although I dont overly buy into it.. I still think it will be very close, and I think it still has a 60% chance of living, although the audio from today was very telling... Fascinating process..

[carlfense]

The tea leaf readers seem to think that the law will be struck down after today's oral arguments.

Just came here to say that.. Although I dont overly buy into it.. I still think it will be very close, and I think it still has a 60% chance of living, although the audio from today was very telling... Fascinating process..

Absolutely.

['SkersRule]

carlfense, maybe you're just being a contrarian, I don't know. But if you seriously think that Congress' ability to regulate commerce equals them telling me, you, or anyone else to buy healthcare, or any other good, service, commodity, etc then we are in serious trouble as a nation.

 

And here's a point nobody else has ever brought up: if we suppose the government has the right through the commerce clause to tell Americans that they have to buy healthcare or any other service then they also have the right to tell Americans that they can't buy something...right? I mean if we're going to stretch the commerce clause to such absurd lengths then let's carry it out all the way to it's logical conclusion.

 

In summary, the commerce clause, as articulated by the left, in essence gives the federal government total control over how Americans spend our money. That isn't a democratic republic under which we are supposed to live, that is a dictatorship.

 

I literally weep for the prospects of this country. And if this gross abomination of Obamacare does somehow "pass" then I will openly refuse to "buy in" and if government goons try to fine or jail me then I will take matters into my own hands.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

 

 

they also have the right to tell Americans that they can't buy something...right?

 

 

 

They already do this.... Look up a list of things banned in this country, Marijuania to Ivory, raw milk/cheese (in fact an Amish man just got arrested for selling raw milk), horse meat, medications, fully automatic weapons, it is shocking what I cannot buy for my own "good"

[knapplc]

They already do this.... Look up a list of things banned in this country, Marijuania to Ivory, raw milk/cheese (in fact an Amish man just got arrested for selling raw milk), horse meat, medications, fully automatic weapons, it is shocking what I cannot buy for my own "good"

 

Exactly!!! This is being billed as a fight by the Republicans to keep "big government" out of your business, but they're already so far into your business it's silly, and nobody says boo about it. This fight is devolving along party lines, not being waged over what is or isn't the best thing for this country.

 

I just love that when faced with the stark reality that the United States unquestionably has the lowest cost / benefit ratio and highest rate of uninsured people in the industrialized world, even worse than many emerging economies, the debate about health care reform is not about efficacy, but how well you can pretend to be an expert in constitutional law. It's like arguing about who's turn it is to do dishes as your house burns down.

Good analogy. And the house is burning down. Healthcare costs are rising at crazy rates. Insurance coverage is being pared back by most employers due to the outrageous costs of premiums. We are not far off from seeing an America where the Middle-Class is thrust into poverty because of a catastrophic health crisis that their insurance carrier refuses to cover.

 

The vast majority of developed nations have mandated health coverage, either paid by the State or through some form of single-payer plan. America - nope. Not us. We're "free."

This is not much different than social security is. Congress says you will pay into a retirement program, period. It gets taken before you ever touch the money. If you are self employed, you pay in or else. And it is constitutional.

 

This is a step to single payer universal health care, just too bad we didn't get that from the get go.

 

Agreed. I'm not sure what, exactly, this plan was supposed to fix. It doesn't seem to have fixed it, whatever it was. We should have just gone to single-payer from the beginning rather than go through this mess.

['SkersRule]

 

 

they also have the right to tell Americans that they can't buy something...right?

 

 

 

They already do this.... Look up a list of things banned in this country, Marijuania to Ivory, raw milk/cheese (in fact an Amish man just got arrested for selling raw milk), horse meat, medications, fully automatic weapons, it is shocking what I cannot buy for my own "good"

 

Give me a break. You can buy marijuana, horse meat or anything else if you know the right people. And just because there's a "law" saying something can't be bought doesn't mean it's right. There's a ban on Cuban cigars but somehow many people smoke them--does that make them criminals? If we go by the letter of the law yes it does. It boils down to one basic train of thought: Do I want the government to be able to dictate what I do in every facet of my life? The left thinks they, and only they, should have total control over your life to try and "save" you from yourself.

[knapplc]

Give me a break. You can buy marijuana, horse meat or anything else if you know the right people. And just because there's a "law" saying something can't be bought doesn't mean it's right. There's a ban on Cuban cigars but somehow many people smoke them--does that make them criminals? If we go by the letter of the law yes it does. It boils down to one basic train of thought: Do I want the government to be able to dictate what I do in every facet of my life? The left thinks they, and only they, should have total control over your life to try and "save" you from yourself.

 

So, because a law can be broken it's not a law?

 

And the second bold - come on. Let's be real here.