Obama: "If the Supreme Court does not follow existing law and precedent, then, you know, ..."

[seafan]

"..... we'll have to manage that when it happens."



Two federal district judges have previously ruled, and now, two appellate judges in Atlanta have newly ruled that the health insurance individual mandate, the cornerstone of Obama's Affordable Care Act, is unconstitutional. This sets the stage for the Supreme Court to take this case.

.....

There’s no question payroll taxes are constitutional, because there’s no doubt that the federal government can tax people in order to finance particular public benefits.

Nor do Americans mind mandates in the form of payroll taxes for Social Security or Medicare. In fact, both programs are so popular even conservative Republicans were heard to shout “don’t take away my Medicare!” at rallies opposed to the new healthcare law.

Requiring citizens to buy something from a private company is entirely different. If Congress can require citizens to buy health insurance from the private sector, reasoned the two appellate judges in Atlanta, what’s to stop it from requiring citizens to buy anything else? If the law were to stand, “a future Congress similarly would be able to articulate a unique problem … compelling Americans to purchase a certain product from a private company.”

Other federal judges in district courts — one in Virginia and another in Florida — have struck down the law on similar grounds. They said the federal government has no more constitutional authority requiring citizens to buy insurance than requiring them to buy broccoli or asparagus. (The Florida judge referred to broccoli; the Virginia judge to asparagus.)

..... LINK

(bold type added)



USA Today:


August 15, 2011

.....

"I have no problem with folks saying 'Obama cares,'" the president said at today's town hall in Cannon Falls, Minn. "I do care."

.....

Obama predicted the Supreme Court would uphold the law, less than a week after an appeals court ruled against the requirement that nearly all Americans will have to buy some sort of health insurance.

Other courts have upheld the law, Obama noted. He argued that the individual mandate is constitutional because taxpayers have to bear the costs of emergency care when the uninsured get sick or injured.

"If the Supreme Court follows existing precedent, existing law, it should be upheld without a problem," Obama said. "If the Supreme Court does not follow existing law and precedent, then, you know, we'll have to manage that when it happens."

.....

"This (individual mandate) used to be a Republican idea," he said.

....

There is no absolutely no doubt as to which side of the ideological spectrum this president represents.

Obama is now wielding the inflammatory concept of "activist courts", if they don't rule in his favor.




We have gone beyond the looking glass.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gin]

3. when they rule against him (and IMO they will) what can he do since

they have final say?

[boston bean]

5. Fight for Medicare fo All. Not just toss up his hands. nt

[lark]

38. Don't hold your breath

The man doesn't even know what a spine mcuh less what happened to his missing one.

[madokie]

57. You can't even use a spell check so why should anyone listen to you

Don't you at least read what you type to see if it makes sense and if you would you'd have caught that.
Keep on hating on our President and we'll be seeing a puke take his place in '13


"The man doesn't even know what a spine mcuh less what happened to his missing one."

[Larry Ogg]

129. The point was discernible and expressed a common sentiment.

You don't have to go all word nazyish on us.

Go have a beer and chill out.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

79. He won't fight for Medicare-For-All

That wouldn't serve the moneyed interests.

[alsame]

7. I think they will uphold the mandate because it is a Republican

position and it will give more of our money to the insurance industry. The fascist 5 on the Roberts court have consistently ruled in favor of corporations, I don't see them changing course now. Just my opinion.

[seafan]

9. Justice Kennedy will be the one to watch. n/t

[Volaris]

27. Taking the above into account, I'm of the opinion that it will be interesting to see

what the SC decides.....

on the one hand, they can strike down the REPUBLICAN idea of the individual mandate, thereby striking a blow to the sitting Democratic President, but REALLY putting the screws to the GOP (who's solution to this problem is SO bad that even the Court thinks its unconstitutional) thereby REOPENING the debate about the best way to go about health-care delivery in America...and since (Dem. talking point incomming)...."we TRIED the GOP approach, and it was found to be... shall we say, "lacking" ?, it would appear the only way to REALLY get this done is to open Medicare for EVERYONE, remove the payroll caps, and let everyone have a piece of a Universal Health System."

OR.....they can uphold the mandate, give the Pres. a win (kind of) and end up telling the GOP basically to fuck off, you lost this one, go figure out some other way to attack the President for having the gall to try "Presidenting"-while-not-being-a-white-Republican (how dare he!!!)..

Either way, it COULD be spun as a win for Dems., it just depends on who is willing to NOT CAVE on the twin ideas of 1) the GOP sucks and doesn't care about you,(or 2) getting something on this better than getting NOTHING, which is what America would have gotten if the GOP got to decide things like this, because in reality, the GOP sucks and doesn't care about you...(isn't that neat how I did that just now, see how easy that is?=))

anyway, I will be watching,

Peace,

[alsame]

34. Yes, it's an interesting dilemma for this particular court - uphold the

GOP idea and give Obama a 'win' or strike down a long time GOP idea in order to make Obama 'lose'. I'll be watching too.

[Prophet 451]

60. I suspect they'll strike it down

My reasoning is that the GOP have tried very hard (and succeeded, in my view) to re-cast the mandate as an Obama idea in the minds of the general public. With that in mind, I expect the SCOTUS to strike down the mandate purely to bedevil Obama.

Incidently, I notice that none of us are even pretending that the SCOTUS decision will have anything to do with the law.

[alsame]

64. But do you really think they'll take all that money away from

the insurance industry just to spite Obama? The GOP may be using the mandate as a talking point now because it's effective, but they actually love it. Think of how much of our money will pour into the insurance industry, long after Obama is out of office. I'm not sure the short term political punch to Obama is worth all the billions of profit.

Yes, this SCOTUS is clearly a political branch of the GOP - at least for now.

[Prophet 451]

73. I do, yes

Whether the GOP would actually support that is a different matter but I'm willing to bet that they SCOTUS will put the short-term benefit to the GOP ahead of the long-term benefit to corporations. After all, if the law is exactly what the SCOTUS says (which you know is what they believe), then they can just reverse the precedent a few years after Obama leaves office.

[alsame]

76. Good point. This will be interesting to watch. nt

[Volaris]

80. This might be a bit off topic,

but if anyone is interested, there is a database of (recorded and posted) oral arguments from the court that anyone can go listen to...
the website is here...

http://www.oyez.org/

Peace,

[alsame]

84. Thank you, that's a great resource! I bookmarked it. nt

[LiberalLovinLug]

109. Its an interesting dilema for the SCOTUS

Do we screw with Obama and piss on his "Obamacare". Make it unconstitutional? That would be a huge "I told you so" for the teabaggers, and frame the Democratic President as a villain who wanted to get one over on the beloved Constitution going into the election.

Or do we let it slide through and help all our buddies in the insurance industry? To reverse the decision in a few years is not going to be all that easy IMO, both politically and law-wise. And to strike it down would once again open the door for us Liberal Retards to start the momentum once again for Single Payer or at least the Public Option. Could they take that chance?

[Prophet 451]

120. I think they will

I could be wrong, of course, but I think they'll place short-term advantage over long-term benefit. Partly, that's just gut feeling on my part though so we'll have to wait and see.

[Firebrand Gary]

54. Medicare for all, I can only dream.

[FredStembottom]

89. Interesting point, Volaris.

I hadn't seen that.

[Joe Bacon]

65. Wall Street wants those mandates!

The pimps running the insurance rackets want those 30 million new marks they can fleece. No doubt the five bought and paid for corporate stamps on the corrupted Supreme Court will uphold the mandates while throwing everything else out that ties their master's hands.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. *Sigh* We sure have.

I gave your post a rec, but the un-reccers have already been here.

[seafan]

8. Thanks, CaliforniaPeggy. The truth is going to win out. We just have to keep putting it out there.

An "individual mandate" to private insurance co's won't pool health risks. Medicare For All will.


But, the current crop of politicians in DC are being paid handsomely not to notice.

[boston bean]

4. It's just laughable. Too bad it's a dead serious issue, that could have been avoided if we it were

Medicare for All!

[scheming daemons]

6. Obama is 100% correct here

The individual mandate is constitutional

[Desertrose]

11. I disagree.

It is unconstitutional to make me buy something from a private corporation.

Seems pretty clear.

[phleshdef]

13. Yet the government itself takes tax dollars from you and buys goods and services from private corps.

...with it all the time. The only difference here is that you are making the purchase yourself instead of some government bureucrat doing it.

But you aren't being MADE to buy anything anyway. Thats the big LIE about the mandate. You can pay the tax if you don't buy it but fall within the income bracket that says you have to.

[boston bean]

14. It is a payroll tax, with tight regulations. This is a give away to private greedy corporations

directly.

Medicare for all is the way to go. Why you so against that?

[phleshdef]

24. Don't play troll games. No one here is against single payer and you know that.

Thats not what this conversation is about. Its about the constitutionality of the mandate.

And the fact that it comes out of payroll tax is irrelevant. They pay Blackwater contractors with that money, don't give me any lectures how about tightly regulated it is, thats bullshit. But as a complete aside, BECAUSE of the HCR bill, these same insurance companies that you are complaining about will be more tightly regulated than they ever were before, especially any of them that want customers that get subsidies, because they'll have to participate in the exchange to get them and in order to participate in the exchange, they have to meet certain standards.

I'm all for single payer/medicare for all, etc, but I'll accept a highly regulated health insurance system with progressive income scale based subsidies in lieu of what we have right now, which is a system that permits insurance companies to play dirty games with people's health and offers no help towards paying for premiums for people who are poor but not poor enough for Medicaid. Thats what this bill accomplishes and only a total prick who cares more about their political ponies than people with pre-existing conditions would have wanted to see it not get passed. Its like you are stuck eating canned spam, someone offers you hamburgers and you get pissed off because its not porterhouse steaks. Thats just stupid.

[boston bean]

30. troll games? Hey I'm all for Medicare for all and will be happy to see this shit health insurance

mandate overturned in the courts.

I believe just like other judges that it is unconstitutional. You name me on thing the FEDERAL government forces you to buy from a private for profit corporation.

Then I might reconsider my reasons for supporting the overturn of the mandate.

[phleshdef]

31. I already did. Every time the federal government takes tax dollars and purchases private goods

...or services, then they are forcing you to shell out money to a for profit corporation. The fact that they use a payroll tax mechanism to do it is irrelevant. They end result is EXACTLY the same.

[Desertrose]

45. No it's not the same at all.

I, as an individual am not purchasing these things. The government is purchasing these things.

The government telling me that I as an individual citizen MUST purchase these things is not the same- it is completely different.They are telling me how to spend my money....forcing me to purchase from a private corporation. VERY DIFFERENT...and clearly so.

[formernaderite]

42. problem is they specifically stated it wsnt a tax

If it were.. they'd be fine constitutionally speaking. I think they were afraid of calling it a tax... as it would be a tax hike on everyone.

[PoliticAverse]

26. It's not a 'tax' if you don't buy insurance it's a 'penalty'. n/t

[phleshdef]

32. As far as the end result goes, there is logically no difference whatsoever.

[PoliticAverse]

36. But there is a legal difference, and that's why courts have made the distinction. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

48. Difference is, it's the govt purchasing w/ revenue vs forcing you to buy something u dont want.

[Marr]

119. What they did here essentially was to cede the authority to tax to private corporations.

Mandating that citizens purchase a product from a private, for-profit company to provide some basic service is essentially handing them the authority to tax. And it's 180 degrees away from the government collecting a tax and purchasing goods/services.

[DFab420]

17. Except for Auto Insurance? Which you are required to purchase.

[Desertrose]

21. But I am not required to own a car.

[DFab420]

22. Nor are you required to go to the hospital??

but you would LIKE to right?

[boston bean]

33. this post sort of makes me sick to my stomach.

to even try to make that analogy is disgraceful.

[Occulus]

41. I'm eating

My stomach heaved.

That there are such evil souls walking the earth.....

[Desertrose]

44. Don't even begin to know what to reply to you.

I think there is no hope for you.

Is it that hard to wrap your mind around universal healthcare so that ALL have an equal chance to go to the hospital if we'd "like" to....without being forced to pay some company that is making a profit from peoples health issues?

Jaysus keerist on a cracker...are you that cold??


Actually I would rather never go to the hospital...I want to stay healthy, but at my age, the odds are not on my side.

[WinkyDink]

85. You now are arguing against your original "car" point, FYI.

[Sirveri]

55. That should also be illegal without a public option.

Mandatory automobile insurance simply created a captive market for the insurers which they then hiked prices on since there was nothing to keep them honest. If the individual mandate for health insurance is struck down by the SCOTUS I will seriously consider filing a class action suit to get the same 'mandate' for auto insurance struck down.

It should either be built in as a fee on registration and run by the state, or you should be able to provide proof of purchase from a private entity. As it stands there is already an out for the ultra wealthy since they can simply dump 100k into an account and then not pay insurance at all (in CA at least).

[Shrek]

135. Auto insurance mandates are not imposed by Congress

Which means there is no possibility of constitutional infirmity.

[treestar]

20. LOL

Send that note to the Supreme Court, so they'll have the proper cite.

[valerief]

25. They take my taxes and buy WAR with most it. I don't want that. No one cares. nt

[Prophet 451]

61. No, it's not

Militia Act, 1797.

[Occulus]

40. The individual mandate must be stopped n/t

[scheming daemons]

66. That's exactly what the teabaggers say

...

[ItNerd4life]

126. That doesn't make it wrong. nt

[hootinholler]

10. How about buying a vaccine?

Although I don't think there has been a Federal requirement for that.

-Hoot

[JoePhilly]

12. How many courts agree that it is Constitutional?

Please tell us!!!

Or does that ruin your framing?

[seafan]

133. Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Cincinnati) upheld; now Eleventh Circuit Atlanta struck it down

You are welcome to do your own research to improve your 'framing', if need be.




Meanwhile, for the sake of completeness for this thread:

As far as I can find, the 6th Circuit and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeal are the only two higher courts at this time that have issued a ruling on lower court decisions on the ACA's individual mandate--- one upholding and one striking down.


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia currently has the case, but has not yet ruled on it.

[dsc]

15. actually we do have a conservative activist supreme court

and he is hardly the first to point that out.

[Uncle Joe]

16. The mandate is a corporate supremacist moist dream so I have no doubt Obama is correct,

the Supreme Court dominated by corporate supremacists will uphold it.

Thanks for the thread, seafan.

[Prophet 451]

62. Disagree

Yes, the SCOTUS is dominated by corporate activists but I think they will choose to bash Obama by striking the mandate down over and above corporate interests. That is, I think they will choose to side with Republican activism rather than corporate activism.

[Uncle Joe]

87. I don't believe any activism is higher on the current Supreme Court totem pole

than corporate supremacy.

If they see the opportunity to advance it, they will regardless of the party, corporate supremacy; is the big dog on the block and that ideology owns the Republican Party, while it dominates the Democrats.

Secondarily more than just choosing to damage Obama, they would prefer to damage the Democratic Party and by upholding this mandate, they will do political damage to both, in their point of view if your enemy wants to shoot themselves in the foot, don't try to stop them.

[Prophet 451]

91. We're just going to have to differ

I think they will place the short-term benefit of the GOP above corporate interest. You think otherwise. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

[DFab420]

18. You know whats really weird? I read through this and never found him saying

"activist courts"

Could you point out where he called them that for me please? I think I missed it. .

[DFab420]

19. Dupe

[valerief]

23. Dangnabit! We're going to have to settle for single payer. Darn! nt

[GeorgeGist]

28. I guess a reasonable compromise ...

would be to require the individual to purchase Medicare.

[Volaris]

29. THIS is what the Dem's should all go say on teevee and say very matter-of-factly

if the Court decides to gut HCR, and let the GOP and the TeaPeople scream fits of bloody rage that the solution that THEY proposed was found to be unconstitutional, (because CLEARLY, they know NOTHING about what actually is and is NOT Constitutional, as far as the Court is concerned).


If only Elected Dem's could see how easy this is to spin in the direction of true single payer, whatever the court decides....

[Jackpine Radical]

35. So Single Payer would be constitutional

as long as a government agency distributes the funds, like Medicare.

[seafan]

82. Exactly. Medicare For All would be part of "the commons", to be used by everyone.

And, it would occur with substantially less administrative/overhead costs, especially for beleaguered physician's offices, who must now fight with a thousand or so private insurance plans and all the associated hoops to jump through.

How marvelously effective it would be for all medical providers to submit their invoices to the government for payment of services rendered, under Medicare For All. This system is already in place, functions well, and people age 65 and above love it. And let's get rid of the private "supplemental plans" piggybacking onto Medicare, by just closing all the "doughnut holes" and other gaps in coverage now.

Then, Medicare would be at its strongest.

[librechik]

102. Yes yes yes!! This is why it was SO CRAZY not to have that as our proposal from the beginning

It really makes you wonder wtf is going on, since rationality and pragmatism get thrown out the window like that.

[swilton]

37. Mandated health care entrenches insurance

companies and with low wages and unemployment, no one can afford it anyway.

It's the other half of the s---/ I mean satan sandwich.

[Motown_Johnny]

39. It isn't a cornerstone, it is a stand alone clause.

The conservatives just want us all to think it is a cornerstone, it isn't.

[Skinner]

43. Couple things.

First: I don't see the phrase "activist courts" in any of your excerpts. Since you put it in quotes, presumably you are quoting here. Could you share the source, please?

Second: the phrase "activist courts" does actually mean something. It refers to when a court disregards the law (ie: overturning an act of Congress) and/or legal precedent (ie: previous Supreme Court decisions, doctrines of settled law) in making its decisions. Obviously, the phrase has been so overused by our conservative opponents that it has come to mean "liberal" in the minds of many people. But if such a thing as judicial activism does exist, then theoretically it could be either liberal or conservative. In fact, I would argue that the current court is both very conservative and activist. They have no respect for precedent (except when they agree with it).

[seafan]

46. After the FL judge struck down the ACA law, "judicial activism" was indeed invoked by the WH.

Florida judge strikes down Obama health care law

USA Today
By David Jackson

January 31, 2011

A federal judge in Florida struck down President Obama's health care law today, saying it is invalidated by the requirement that nearly all Americans buy health insurance.

Obama White House officials called the ruling "judicial activism,"and the Justice Department announced it would appeal: "We strongly disagree with the court's ruling today and continue to believe -- as other federal courts have found -- that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional."

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson -- the second federal jurist to rule against the law -- wrote that "Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority" with the buy-insurance requirement known as the "individual mandate."

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void," Vinson said.

.....

The language of "judicial activism" was also used in a NYT editorial after the Florida ruling, but the piece of information most notable in this piece concerned the omission of a "severability clause" in the legislation.


February 1, 2011

A ruling by a Federal District Court judge in Florida that the entire health care reform law is unconstitutional was a breathtaking example of judicial activism and overreach.

.....

Judge Vinson is way out on a limb in attempting to throw out the whole law, a primary goal of the Republican Party. Two federal district judges nominated by Democratic presidents have concluded that the individual mandate requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty is constitutional. Two judges nominated by Republican presidents, including Judge Vinson, have found the mandate unconstitutional. But the other Republican-nominated judge, Henry Hudson, acted with restraint in a case in Virginia. Although Virginia’s attorney general asked him to invalidate the entire law, he invalidated only the mandate because of a tradition that courts eliminate only problematic parts of a law, not the entire law.

Judge Vinson acknowledged that he was deviating from this practice, but he argued that this is an atypical case in which the individual mandate is so “inextricably bound” to the remaining provisions that it cannot be severed. He may well be right that the mandate is essential to guaranteeing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions because it will force healthy people into the insurance pools and thus keep premiums down. But his argument seems stretched past the breaking point.

He reads too much significance into the fact that the Democrats failed to include a “severability clause” to ensure that if any provisions were found to be invalid then the rest of the law would be unaffected. He believes this shows that Congress recognized the act wouldn’t work without the mandate. It seems much more likely that it was an error in the closing Congressional struggle.

.....

(bold type added)



This is what Obama said today in Cannon Falls, MN:


August 15, 2011

When asked at a town hall in Cannon Falls, MN, today about what his plan would be if the Supreme Court were to find the individual mandate provision of the law unconstitutional, the president started off by attempting to reassure supporters.

“Essentially, patient rights that were in the bill, all those things are going to be there," he said. "So no lifetime caps and no fine print.” The president continued, “All that stuff is going to be in place.”

He then explained how requiring insurance companies to insure those with pre-existing conditions only works if the mandate is left intact.

“If an insurance company has to take you," he said," has to insure you, even if you’re sick, but you don’t have an individual mandate, then what would everybody do? They would wait until they get sick and then you’d buy health insurance. Everybody here at some point or another is going to need medical care, and you can’t be a free-rider on everybody else -- you can’t not have health insurance, then go to the emergency room and each of us who’ve done the responsible thing and have health insurance, suddenly we now have to pay the premiums for you. That’s not fair.”

.....

(bold type added)





The fact that there is no "severability clause" in this legislation, as noted by the Florida judge, is quite interesting. So, will the ACA stand if the Supreme Court strikes the individual mandate down? It seems as if the mandate is tightly bound to the rest of the ACA, as that was what Big Health Insurance demanded in return for having to insure everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. Obama acknowledged that today, as noted in the clip above.


It appears that if that mandate goes down, so does the entire legislation, notably having been created under secret deal-making, loopholes, and contorted benefits pushed out beyond 2014.



The ultimate question for me is, does a court exist to rubber-stamp legislation by Congress, or does it exist as an independent body to decide whether the legislation in question is constitutional?


It will be interesting to see this play out.

[Skinner]

69. The mandate IS a vital piece of the puzzle.

The health care law will almost certainly fail without it. Yes, insurance companies like the mandate, but that's not the reason it exists. The mandate exists so that healthy people will buy insurance. The law requires health insurers to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. So, what would the proverbial "rational" person do if there is no mandate? They would not buy health insurance when they are healthy, and then buy it the moment they get sick. The obvious problem is that if healthy people did not buy insurance, the premiums would be unaffordable.

Whether a severability clause exists or not, the entire system would crash and burn without the mandate. It can't work.

[seafan]

81. Absolutely. The forced individual mandate was the ransom for covering pre-existing conditions.

Demanding that healthy people be forced into the system was the only way Big Insurance would agree to accept people with pre-existing conditions.

Unfortunately, Obama signed off on this deal, merely one of many that were hashed out behind closed doors by the White House, Big Health Insurance and Big Pharma.

.....The Atlanta court upheld portions of U.S. District Judge C. Roger Vinson’s ruling in Pensacola, Florida, that Congress exceeded its power in requiring that almost every American obtain insurance starting in 2014.

The U.S. has called the mandatory-coverage provision the linchpin of the statute because it will add younger and healthier people to the pool of the insured population, making the program viable for insurers.

Vinson on Jan. 31 ruled that Congress exceeded its powers under the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause when it created the requirement. Concluding that the mandate was integral to the rest of the legislation, he invalidated the entire act.

..... LINK

As I understand it, Congress, under the Commerce Clause, can "regulate", but not "compel" (the mandate).

...

“The Commerce Clause only gives Congress the power to regulate, not to compel,” states’ attorney Paul D. Clement, a solicitor general under President George W. Bush, told the court later. (Eleventh Circuit, Atlanta)

..... LINK

What is so furiously frustrating is that Medicare For All would include all healthy people in the pool (with the older and sicker) in the first place, at a fraction of the private insurers' overhead charges, and without this massive overreach by Congress.


But Big Health Insurance/Big Pharma and those who lust for their campaign contributions can't have THAT.



There is very little common sense exhibited in our government right now. Only greed. And it is by design.



The sooner people shake off the stupor about how and the degree we are being abused, the better for the future of the country.

[Skinner]

93. Oh brother.

It's not "ransom", it's MATH.

I'm no fan of insurance companies, and yes they supported the deal. But that doesn't change the fact that the mandate serves a vital purpose. If only sick people bought insurance, then it would cease to be insurance. It would be way too expensive for everyone.

[seafan]

96. A "tax mandate" that everyone pays into, and the reward is universal single payer Medicare For All..

Those numbers look good to me. :)


The continuing problem we have right now is that the politicians are too enamored with campaign contributions from Big Health Insurance and Big Pharma to ever do what's right for the people. That is what needs changing.


All of these machinations we've been subjected to over the past 2.5 years over health care have done nothing except prolong the agony of people who just need access to affordable health care NOW, without all of the cruel tricks played by the insurance companies trying to pad their profits by limiting/denying people the access to said coverage.


Health care should be a basic human right, and a part of "the commons" serving everyone, and not held hostage by insurance companies paying off politicians to protect their turf.


With all of that said, just speaking for myself, I hope the individual mandate is struck down by the Supreme Court; if that happens, it will be the opening we need for a massive push for Medicare For All.


Gawd knows, do we ever need it.

[canoeist52]

106. Which explains why insurance premiums in Massachusetts

have dropped so precipitously now that we have a mandate ...oh wait, my family plan has doubled and it now includes deductibles.

[grahamhgreen]

47. Ideally, they strip the mandate and keep the rest of the bill. I don't see why anyone would object!

What's the worst that could happen?

Big insurance goes belly up?

[999998th word]

49. Ha Ha Ha ....

:nopity: ....but ..but they are job creators ?:puke:

[Control-Z]

52. Ideally, they keep the mandate,

and the rest of the bill but lose the insurance companies to medicare for all.

[Major Hogwash]

53. Don't let the cat out of the bag just yet.

The Supremes could approve it and then we will have to "reform" it after Obama gets re-elected and say something like, "on 2nd thought, this idea sux, and we need the public option, too."
If for no other reason than to make McCain's head spin like the little girl out of the Exorcist movie.

Then let them scream all they want in the wind about Obama the Kenyan without a birth certificate who is a Muslim!!

Which is how those racist scumbags, like Michelle Bachmann, spent doing all of 2010!!!

[jeff47]

92. The worst that could happen is an averse selection death spiral that kills lots of people

...from preventable/treatable diseases.

But Blue Cross might have a bad quarter, so full speed ahead!!

[grahamhgreen]

97. How could that happen? They would still have to take people with pre-existing conditions.

[jeff47]

100. By selecting based on broader criteria

For example, not selling insurance to people who live in Alabama, since they are more likely to be sick.
(Alabama chosen at random there, since I don't have any healthcare cost stats handy)

[grahamhgreen]

103. If that did happen, then Alabama would simply set up single-payer.

Alabama would be much better off without them.

Although I really doubt all the insurers would give up a huge market like that.

[jeff47]

104. Alabama? No, they'd let there people die before embracing that evil socialism. (nt)

[grahamhgreen]

110. You couldn't be more wrong. That's not how it went down with civil rights (pics).

[jeff47]

112. Civil rights was 60 years ago. It's not the same Alabama.

While I don't doubt the presence of liberals in Alabama, I do doubt their ability to get single-payer healthcare through their statehouse.

[grahamhgreen]

113. I'm next door in Georgia. Yes, we can.

[jeff47]

114. Then have at it. As VT demonstrated, single-payer is a way to handle the state-level exchanges (nt)

[grahamhgreen]

115. Without big insurance in the state (or out of business), it will be that much easier.

Since getting rid of the mandate damages big insurance and their political clout, I'm all for eliminating it.

[sabrina 1]

50. I agree with the judges. They are absolutely correct

about forcing citizens to buy a product from a Private Business. This was the obvious Constitutional objection most of us had against Mandated Insurance, when it was Republicans pushing for it.

If the Government can force you to buy a commodity from a Private Business, what next will they force us to buy? It really sets a dangerous precedent and I am so surprised that this president who is a Constitutional lawyer, would ever have caved on this.

How sad that Obama WAS AGAINST MANDATES in the Campaign and now he's actually saying 'This is a Republican idea'. He's right, it is, so why did he do it?

I hope the SC upholds this ruling, although I doubt it. Scalia and Thomas will vote for the Big Insurance Corps sadly. And I'm sure Obama already knows that. I hope then that the Liberal judges do what is right.

Then we can go back and let Congress simply extend Medicare for all which is what they should have done in the first place, and it will be much cheaper and far better quality for all Americans.

[Prophet 451]

63. Militia Act, 1797

That also forced the populace to buy from private companies and it was passed by the very same people who wrote and signed the Constitution. So far, the conservative response to that precedent has been "That doesn't count because we don't want it to".

[MadHound]

68. Umm, that was basically a conscription act,

And while yes, it forced men, and only men, not the entire populace, to purchase powder and ball for their personal gun before reporting for duty, it only made that imposition in the course of being called up. Unlike HCR, which forces everybody to purchase insurance simply because you are breathing.

Oh, and remember, there is no Militia Act of 1797. You are either referring to the Militia Act of 1792 or the later modification of that Act in 1798.

Get your history straight.

[Prophet 451]

71. I was referring to the 1798 version

And being out by a year is a really petty thing to pick on.

[MadHound]

74. Sorry, I'm a historian, and such things do matter

Far too much harm has been done in this country by people throwing around historical "facts" without really knowing what they're talking about. You want to look all cool and shit then you actually need to know your shit.

And it is more than being "out by a year", it is the difference between an Act, and a modification of the Act. An Act is much more significant than a modification.

But to get to the meat of the matter, the Militia Act did not force every single person to purchase something from a private business. It required men, and men only, to purchase supplies for their gun only in the event of being called up for duty.

Unlike HCR which requires every single person, men and women, to purchase health insurance simply as a condition of being born here.

Thus under the light of historical facts, your comparison falls apart. That's what generally happens when you are sloppy about throwing historical facts around, you wind up looking foolish and uneducated. Take this as a lesson to truly know your history next time before you try to look all cool by referencing it.

[Prophet 451]

77. Cool, I trained in law

And therefore, by your argument, I know better than you. An act is more significant than an Amendment, yes, but legal practice is to refer to the Act by the later date. So the correct reference by legal standards is "Militia Act 1798 (As Amended)".

Since the Militia Act conscripts every free and able-bodied male, the difference comes under what the law calls "de minimis". That means it is a distinction which is without a difference and therefore, legally irrelevent. Arguing that the law only applies when a male is called to cuty is legally absurd when the act specifies that it calls every male to duty. You can always choose to pay the penalty instead or set up your own insurance company just to cover you or move out of the country.

Don't try to look all cool by arguing law unless you actually know how the law works. Or you could try just not being a prick about it.

[MadHound]

78. And yet funny how it is never referred to as the Militia Act of 1798, amended or otherwise

It is always referred to as the Militia Act of 1792. Hmmm, so much for that vaunted legal "training".

And your lack of distinction between calling up only men, and forcing everybody, men, women and children to purchase health insurance is not a trivial distinction at all. But hey, apparently you only trained in the law, perhaps you need to practice it to make such a distinction:shrug:

There is no, absolutely no, precedent that has been set that says it is Constitutional to force every single man, woman and child to purchase a product from a private business. Please, since you are trained in law, please point me to such a precedent.

Oh, that's right, you can't. All you can do is badly mangle history, then try and use your legal "training" to mangle it even further.

I'll stop being a prick when you stop pretending that you actually know something pertaining to this matter, both historically and legally.

[Prophet 451]

90. No, you'll stop being a prick now

Because you're going on my Ignore list. Doubtless, you'll stroke your ego by presuming it's because you're so great as egomaniacs always do but I couldn't give a shit.

[Occulus]

99. It tells me a lot about you

that you would see someone who is so obviously so much more knowledgable and trained than you yourself as a "prick".

[jeff47]

101. The historian is "more trained" in law than the lawyer?

I think you're reading that backwards, chief.

[MadHound]

107. No, the historian knows how to do proper research better than the person I was debating

Considering that much of my research has been into legal matters, I'm more than passing familiar with the law, legal databases and law libraries.

If you have something to counteract what I've stated above, then please, out with it.

[jeff47]

111. Sure

How many people were trained as gunsmiths in 1797/1798?

Your first premise is that the Militia Act was different is based on the idea that anyone can slap together some parts, load it with explosives and turn it into a gun. The people of that time were smart enough not to do that...or dead from a "gun" that exploded in their face. You had to be a gunsmith to do an adequate job of making the parts. And with 'interchangeable parts' being a fairly new concept, you couldn't necessarily have parts that were actually interchangeable. Especially if you were trying to cobble together a cheap gun from cheap cast-off parts.

While hand-me-downs were possible of complete weapons, this was an unlikely way to comply with the law. Except for the wealthy, you needed your one gun to comply with the law (and hunt) - there was no 'old' gun to give to someone else. Plus, city folk tended to not have long arms anyway.

More to the point, there's nothing stopping you or a collection of like-minded persons from starting your own insurance company. Meaning the same loophole that you claim makes the Militia Act different is available for the ACA.

Lastly, you try to make a big deal about it only requiring "men" to buy the weapons. Yet at the time women and children were virtually non-entities in the law. Since women and children were chattel, they were irrelevant as far as the law was concerned.

[MadHound]

121. I don't understand why you are talking about making weapons,

That wasn't the thrust of my argument at all. You are trying to change the subject, and worse you are trying to shove words in my mouth, words that I didn't say or imply.

And the way that you dismiss the fact that half the population wasn't required to participate in this shows that you quite possibly consider women irrelevant as well.

Try again, and this time stay on topic. Don't go shoving words in my mouth. Read what I wrote and respond to that, don't respond to what you wanted me to write.

[jeff47]

132. I appear to have confused your argument with Lyric's on weapons.

As for dismissing women, I didn't. The founders did. Remember that whole thing about women not being able to vote?

In 1798, women were not treated as citizens. They were treated as children. The argument against women's suffrage back then was, "Why should her husband get two votes?". And the fact that most of the founders were extremely sexist doesn't have anything to do with my views on women.

Anyway, excluding women from the militia act doesn't mean the act was limited in it's scope. What it meant was the only gender the founders cared about were covered by the act. And since all able-bodied men were also conscripted, you can't claim "only when conscripted" as evidence that the militia acts were limited.

Single payer is a far better system. A "public option" may be a viable compromise. But the ACA isn't unconstitutional for forcing you to buy insurance. It fits very nicely into the "Necessary and Proper" clause when combined with the other parts of the ACA.

Specifically: without the mandate, it doesn't make sense to buy insurance until you enter the hospital or doctor's office because the ACA eliminated pre-existing conditions. No pre-existing conditions means there's nothing to stop you from waiting to buy insurance until you need treatment. Which means the costs aren't spread among the sick and the healthy, which means the sick are paying full price.

Are there better systems? Yes. Is having private insurance in the mix absolutely unworkable? No, as Switzerland demonstrates it can work with lots of regulation on the insurers.

We're going to have to spend the next few decades making the ACA work. Eventually, we'll end up with a public option that becomes de-facto single-payer. And it is a massive shame that Obama and the Democrats didn't have the courage to get the job done now. But for now, eliminating the mandate won't make insurance or medical care cheaper. It will make them much more expensive.

[MadHound]

105. Ooo, the dreaded ignore

Ah, I see, you finally got around to doing the research you should have done before. Realized just how badly wrong you were, and have now decided to put me on ignore for daring to point out the error of your ways.

Stay classy there

[ItNerd4life]

127. Thank you for keeping facts as true facts..

I hate how some people start spewing bs facts. It's something Republicans do and it disgusts me when it's done here.

[Lyric]

70. Actually, it didn't. And it's not a good comparison anyway.

Theoretically, you could have built your *own* musket or rifle without buying one from a private manufacturer. You could either build it from scratch (if you had those skills, which were not uncommon skills in that era) or assemble it from cast-off pieces of broken rifles and muskets. Or you could be given one by a friend, a neighbor, or a relative. The PURCHASE was not mandated by law--just the possession. There were alternative means of getting a firearm and ammunition beyond purchasing them from the manufacturer.

But it's not a good comparison even if we say that the purchase WAS required, because it was a one-time purchase--not an ongoing service. There's a pretty big difference between obtaining (by whatever means) a single consumer good, and being forced to buy a service that you must continue to pay for every single month for the rest of your life. These subtle distinctions in the circumstances are exactly the kind of thing that constitutional courts must take into account.

Also, it was the Militia Act of 1792--the Militia Act, 1797 was in Britain, love. ;)

[Prophet 451]

72. The difference is legally irrelevent

If someone was arguing the difference then that might be relevent but they're not. Also, arguing that there's a difference between purchase and possession is a non-starter too since you could set-up your own insurance company just as you could build your own rifle. I'd be willing to argue that the difference comes under de minimis (i.e. a distinction so trivial that the law ignores it) and I'd be fairly sure of winning.

Fair point on the date and you were nicer about it than the guy above. You're right, I mixed up the dates of your Militia Act and our own.

Incidently, this whole discussion is probably moot. We don't either of us think this thing is going to be decided on the grounds of the law, surely?

[Major Hogwash]

117. Horse hockey!! That's a distinction without a difference. That type of horse hockey doesn't matter.

Not in the end game.
Might be fun to kick around on the playground for a while and pretend to discuss it, but it doesn't equate to the same result that we are talking about.

[Shrek]

136. Was congressional authority for the Militia Act rooted in the commerce clause?

Or did it come from its Article I power to organize a militia?

It's a relevant distinction if you're going to compare it to an insurance mandate.

[blkmusclmachine]

51. Guess which direction the Supreme Court intends to move:

Hint: They've already barracaded the front doors and entrance is now through a massive screening labyrinth underground. I think they know the citizenry will be unhappy, very very unhappy.

[Obamanaut]

56. An accomplished public speaker tossing "you know" in the middle of a sentence

is just terrible.

Next, at the end of a signing statement will be appended "just sayin'".

[Renew Deal]

58. This is why Obama is a genius

The mandate is proven unconstitutional leaving a public/universal option as the only place to go. Brilliant!

[Scuba]

59. Why was the HCR monstrosity passed in the first place? To lend credence...

...to the idea that government should stay out of healthcare?


A simple Medicare for All bill would have been embraced by a vast majority of voters. HCR did just the opposite.


(Yes, there's some good in there, but overall, the HCR bill is doing more harm than good.)

[ipaint]

67. It was passed as a bailout.

The ins. industry stands to lose 70 million plus baby boomer customers to medicare in the next decade or so. They and their parasitic investors need mandated taxpayers to replace them.

[seafan]

86. Exactly right. You said in two sentences what it has all been about from the beginning.

The ins. industry stands to lose 70 million plus baby boomer customers to medicare in the next decade or so. They and their parasitic investors need mandated taxpayers to replace them.


Thanks, ipaint.

[ipaint]

108. Yes. The insurance companies admitted it publicly from the beginning.

All the rest of this high drama is just a shiny distraction. People will never learn.

Meanwhile the states are cutting medicaid to the bone and the federal government is looking to cut over $400 million from the very same program. All us 133% above poverty level poor people who are supposed to be overjoyed we are getting "free" healthcare are about to get the rug yanked out from under our feet... again.

Good luck collecting mandates from the rest of the willfully ignorant in this country in a decade + long recession/depression.

[AlmostUlyanov]

75. Did he actually say those words?

If so, you're fucked!

[WinkyDink]

83. It is the PRIVATE PROFIT FACTOR that EXACTLY makes the HCA UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And Obama KNOWS THIS.

NO argument can refute this, as Appellate Courts are ruling.

Auto insurance? One isn't required to be a car-owner, and thus a purchaser of car insurance, to be a citizen in America, or children, e.g., would not be accorded citizenship. No argument can refute this, not even "But I must drive to work." Law is not about "But."

Medicare? The Medicare patient isn't paying directly to a for-profit company.

Free-loading ER patients causing increases in policy payments of the insured? Which particular insurance companies would those be anyway, that are the specific "effect" end of this specious "cause-and-effect" argument? The companies with billion-dollar profits?

The precedent this HCA would set cannot be under-estimated.

Remember Eminent Domain? More than a few local jurists now define "public good" as allowing PRIVATE DEVELOPERS to profit from and thus pay higher taxes on OTHER private property seized under ED.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml
Allentown, PA (near me): http://www.wfmz.com/lehighvalleynews/27945452/detail.html

[jeff47]

94. The constitution does not say what you think it says.

As mentioned up-thread, the framers themselves required every male to buy a product (a gun and ammo) from private manufacturers, who made a profit. At that time, "every male" was legally equivalent to "everyone", as women and children were more-or-less non-persons.

[SlimJimmy]

116. One time purchase. It is quite the salient point that more than a few here

have blissfully ignored. HCR requires a continuing (read perpetual) purchase of a never ending service. Comparing that to a one time purchase prior to the establishment of a standing and federally equipped army, is just ludicrous.

[lonestarnot]

88. What I want to know is why Americans should heed any ruling handed down by conflict of interest

fuckwits and corrupt fuckwads who don't even pay their fucking taxes?

[mistertrickster]

95. Yup, that's what we Leftists said would happen when O caved on the public option.

Don't blame us . . . we told ya, dude.

[grahamhgreen]

98. +1. Another "we told you so". I wonder when they'll listen to us?

[cstanleytech]

118. If the SCOTUS takes the case and rules it unconstitutional for the government to

require people to purchase health insurance then I wonder if that would also invalidate the government mandating that people who own a car to have auto insurance?

Also legally could the government get around the whole thing of SCOTUS coming into it by instituting a new tax say called a healthcare tax where they collect 5000 dollars (example only so no one get bent over the price) from your wages you earn and per year but if you prove that you have heath insurance for the entire year they refund the money?

[SlimJimmy]

122. A person does not have to own or drive a vehicle, therefore there is no blanket requirement for

everyone to purchase car insurance. That's not true in the case of the HCR mandate. Everyone is required to purchase insurance whether they want it or not.

[cstanleytech]

123. I thought there were some exceptions like for the Amish?

[SlimJimmy]

125. There are lierally thousands of carve outs for corporations, and unions, and other groups. But

for the average Joe like you and me, nothing but mandate or penalty.

[cstanleytech]

130. Really? There isnt anything like oh say assistance if your incomes low

and or subsidies based on income so people can afford insurance?

[SlimJimmy]

134. That falls under the "other groups" I already addressed. For the

average working Joe, there is little to nothing.

[caseymoz]

124. How can you read "activist courts" into "we'll manage that when it happens"?

That's a meally-mouthed statement if there ever was one. What does "manage" mean in that context? What's the difference in saying "we'll have to manage that" and "we'll just have to (suck it up) and deal with it?"

Especially when Obama can't get any court nominations through?

You think you can tell what side of the political spectrum he's on?

[seafan]

131. Not "reading" anything; actually pointing out prior statements by the WH.

See post 46.


USA Today

January 31, 2011

A federal judge in Florida struck down President Obama's health care law today, saying it is invalidated by the requirement that nearly all Americans buy health insurance.

Obama White House officials called the ruling "judicial activism,"and the Justice Department announced it would appeal: "We strongly disagree with the court's ruling today and continue to believe -- as other federal courts have found -- that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional."

.....

It's part of a pattern, seen by those paying attention.

[ItNerd4life]

128. If we can be forced to buy insurance, aren't we supporting Republicans? nt