U.S. Politics, 15

[C S]

Triskele,

I've thrown out the example of health club memberships a few times. The First Lady is on a kick to fight obesity calling it one of the biggest problems facing the US. If Congress can mandate everyone purchase health insurance why, given the obesity crisis and its direct impact upon health care costs, can't Congress mandate all US citizens have memberships in health clubs/gyms or face fines?

Well, Congress has effectively already mandated that everyone has (very limited) medical insurance via the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986. The newer requirement simply mandates that you actually have to pay for it. I'm not sure if that is a very good answer to your question, but it is a relevant point nonetheless.

[The Progressive]

Congress exceeded its powers under the commerce clause. It doesn't matter whether you find this abuse more acceptable than other abuses. An abuse is an abuse is an abuse. Period.

Except it didn't, given that the non-participation in health insurance tremendously affect interstate commerce. I don't care if you keep trying to avoid that point, but the fact is that such action are therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the commerce clause.

[Shryke]

While I support many provisions of the HCB, the mandate has always bothered me. I liked that Obama spoke out against it during his campaign, and was disappointed to see him defending it during the ramp-up to the bill's passage. It felt like a huge wet kiss to the insurance industry at the expense of the people.

It's only a boon to the health insurance industry in that it allows them to keep rates low.

Without a mandate, rates would shoot through the roof as there would be no reason to purchase insurance till you needed to use it. Which, you know, kinda negates the point of insurance.

[Tempra]

Except it didn't, given that the non-participation in health insurance tremendously affect interstate commerce. I don't care if you keep trying to avoid that point, but the fact is that such action are therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the commerce clause.

It doesn't matter whether non-participation affects interstate commerce if non-participation does NOT qualify as economic activity. Look, we're just going around and around at this point. Kennedy will make one of us eat our words. Considering how unpopular the bill is, the unprecedented nature of the bill, and the fact that Kennedy sided with the conservatives in Lopez and Morrison (the last two major Commerce Clause cases that split 5-4), I'm thinking Kennedy stays put with the conservative wing of the court.

[ThinkerX]

I don't know how you could make that sort of nonsense claim when healthcare spending is a sizeable chunk of the US economy.

...and similiar comments...

...still a dedicated believer that FIRE* is the way to go, eh? (

*Finance, Insurance, Real Estate - the interests that *Really* run the government.)

From where I'm standing, the so called 'mandate' is a giant step towards serfdom. I mean that literally. Most of the country, in the very near future, simply *WILL NOT* be able to afford health care insurance - which means they get penalized.

You want universal health care, do it through medi-whatever, jack up those taxes accordingly, and leave the insurance companies out of it. The private insurers will rip off everybody they can through rate hikes and refusing to pay out on any technicallity they can dream up.

[The Progressive]

...and similiar comments...

...still a dedicated believer that FIRE* is the way to go, eh? (

*Finance, Insurance, Real Estate - the interests that *Really* run the government.)

From where I'm standing, the so called 'mandate' is a giant step towards serfdom. I mean that literally. Most of the country, in the very near future, simply *WILL NOT* be able to afford health care insurance - which means they get penalized.

You want universal health care, do it through medi-whatever, jack up those taxes accordingly, and leave the insurance companies out of it. The private insurers will rip off everybody they can through rate hikes and refusing to pay out on any technicallity they can dream up.

First, it has been pointed out repeatedly that those who fall under certain income threshold would receive subsidies to purchase health insurance under the ACA. I don't know why you keep harping on it faux-outrage bullshit that has no basis in reality but you do trot it up quite often enough, and I could only conclude that you either have reading comprehension problem, or just a damn troll who has no regard for things like fact and reality. Tell you what, do you want to make a bet that this is a provision of the ACA?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Second, I like your approach about medicare tax increase as a way to universal care, but I think you have have zero chance convincing Scot and Tempra et al to go along with it. Oh yeah, don't forget a cap on providers' salaries and drug prices too.

But here's a novel idea ............ try seeing the mandate as simply a tax raise to pay for the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

Second, I like your approach about medicare tax increase as a way to universal care, but I think you have have zero chance convincing Scot and Tempra et al to go along with it. Oh yeah, don't forget a cap on providers' salaries and drug prices too.

But here's a novel idea ............ try seeing the mandate as simply a tax raise to pay for the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid.

It's really too bad for you and other supporters of mandates that the President and others stood so firmly on the proposition that the mandate was not a tax. I think legally that may have been a winning argument but when he is on record denying mandates are taxes repeatedly it makes it very hard for the Justice Department to come in with the post hoc rationalization of the madates as taxes.

[Tempra]

Lev,

It's really too bad for you and other supporters of mandates that the President and others stood so firmly on the proposition that the mandate was not a tax. I think legally that may have been a winning argument but when he is on record denying mandates are taxes repeatedly it makes it very hard for the Justice Department to come in with the post hoc rationalization of the madates as taxes.

Are you saying Obama "acted stupidly?" :)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tempra,

I think Obama ignored the legal hurdles he should have recognized he was going to face in order to win political points and encourage passage of the ACA.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/14/manning

Glenn Greenwald reveals that Bradley Manning - who has been convicted of no crime, has been kept in solitary confinement for 7 months. He is not allowed to exercise, even in his cell, and is denied even a pillow and a blanket for sleeping. Many would argue that he is being subjected to torture, despite his innocence before the law.

[TrackerNeil]

As Hudson said, Congress can certainly regulate the healthcare industry, but it cannot regulate (under the commerce clause) a person who is not engaged in economy activity (i.e. does not buy health insurance).

Well, that's settled. I guess the Supreme Court can take a pass on hearing this one.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

You know I'll bet the words you just put in Tempra's mouth are crunchy.

[The Progressive]

Tempra,

I think Obama ignored the legal hurdles he should have recognized he was going to face in order to win political points and encourage passage of the ACA.

And the legal hurdles are? So far all I could see is some objection about how the mandate shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't be argue as a form of tax before SCOTUS ........... but I don't see exactly any specific legal reason why that is, except for such vague objection.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

Some rather diverse courts have held the Tax Post Hoc rationalization dosen't work. That would be the "hurdle" I'm refering to that Pres. Obama should, perhaps, have anticipated.

[The Progressive]

Lev,

Some rather diverse courts have held the Tax Post Hoc rationalization dosen't work. That would be the "hurdle" I'm refering to that Pres. Obama should, perhaps, have anticipated.

What cases were those, Scot?

[Swordfish]

Ezra Klein today is making the same point I made yesterday about how conservatives may not want to oppose the mandate as much as they seem to be.

Highly unlikely. Let's not forget that the democrats, for the most part, don't want the insurance companies to go way either.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The one from Florida and the one from Michigan. Both said the "tax" argument didn't fly.

[Shryke]

http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/14/manning

Glenn Greenwald reveals that Bradley Manning - who has been convicted of no crime, has been kept in solitary confinement for 7 months. He is not allowed to exercise, even in his cell, and is denied even a pillow and a blanket for sleeping. Many would argue that he is being subjected to torture, despite his innocence before the law.

I don't see how one could argue anything else.

[The Progressive]

So there's no SCOTUS case, Scot?

I wouldn't take anything from rightwing judges from the lower court too serious on an issue this important if I were you.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

Gosh, I don't recall ever claiming the Supremes had ruled on the ACA. I'm simply pointing out courts in liberal and conservative districts have rejected the tax argument. It will come before the Supremes we'll see what happens.