ACA (a.k.a. Obamacare) Upheld

[fskimospy]

So are you implying that every man between 18-45 was permanently in the Militia until 1903?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

Irrelevant. Either Congress had a valid power to force someone to purchase a private product or it didn't. You have repeatedly argued that Congress does not have such a power, and yet several of the framers of the Constitution and the father of our country clearly had no problem with it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Never in the history of our country has anyone ever been forced to purchase anything.

And never in the history of our country has anyone had the right to get free medical care just for showing up at a hospital.

With rights come responsibilities.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, just a few decades ago the federal government was able to force people to enter the military and go overseas to get shot in the head. Are you claiming that this is more of a violation of freedom than that was?

 

[shortylickens]

And never in the history of our country has anyone had the right to get free medical care just for showing up at a hospital.

With rights come responsibilities.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, just a few decades ago the federal government was able to force people to enter the military and go overseas to get shot in the head. Are you claiming that this is more of a violation of freedom than that was?

Yeah but they didnt force em to buy anything!
:awe:

 

[Infohawk]

Nope, sorry.

I was responding to Matt1970's claim that people had never been forced to purchase anything in the history of our country. The militia act of 1792 explicitly proves this to be false. Furthermore, the point of that passage was expressly to force people to purchase weapons. It says so word for word, and that point is inarguable. Unless you are trying to argue that "...every citizen shall, within six months, provide himself with a good musket or firelock" does not mean that citizens have to purchase a good musket or firelock. (I guess they could build their own?)

Aren't you exaggerating the importance of that militia act to this one just a little bit? The context of the country was completely different at that time. The federal government was in its infancy and may not have had the means to buy guns in bulk. Also, there has always been a greater deference to government power when it comes to the military. Is that the only example of the federal government forcing people to buy things?

Roberts has ruled that Obamacare is constitutional, but it still seems that this is for all practical purposes a new step for government in this country. If there are other examples, I'd be curious to know what they are but otherwise at the very least it's the resuscitation of a concept (forcing you to buy something) that is completely foreign to Americans.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The context of the country was completely different at that time.

Okay, let's accept that this is true. It's also different now. So why is it necessarily wrong that a different approach be taken?

Roberts has ruled that Obamacare is constitutional, but it still seems that this is for all practical purposes a new step for government in this country.

But is it really different in a "practical" sense, or in a theoretical sense?

Suppose they simply levied the non-insurance mandate as a tax for everyone, and then provided a tax rebate if you purchased health insurance. Would there be any practical difference?

 

[fskimospy]

Aren't you exaggerating the importance of that militia act to this one just a little bit? The context of the country was completely different at that time. The federal government was in its infancy and may not have had the means to buy guns in bulk. Also, there has always been a greater deference to government power when it comes to the military. Is that the only example of the federal government forcing people to buy things?

Roberts has ruled that Obamacare is constitutional, but it still seems that this is for all practical purposes a new step for government in this country. If there are other examples, I'd be curious to know what they are but otherwise at the very least it's the resuscitation of a concept (forcing you to buy something) that is completely foreign to Americans.

I'm not really exaggerating anything, I'm just showing Matt1970 that what he is saying is easily, provably false. I agree that the country was a different place back then, but that hardly seems to matter as to his point. I'm going to guess that Matt1970 isn't a big fan of interpreting the Constitution based on the norms of the time you live in.

Specifically at issue here is the idea that the Constitution contains an individual, positive right to be immune from forced purchases. There simply isn't any jurisprudence to this effect that I am aware of, and legislation enacted in the past has run directly contrary to this. None of this matters as to the constitutionality of the ACA as we currently have it, but he is arguing for a new civil right that hasn't previously existed to the best of my knowledge.

 

[nehalem256]

Irrelevant. Citizens were being forced to purchase a private product regardless of any wants or desires of their own. Is your argument that Congress may force you to buy private products once it conscripts you? Would it have been a permissible exercise of power for Congress to draft all of the United States into the military and then impose the individual mandate? (as the health of troops is very important)

Congress has the power to draft people

The President as commander in chief of the military would have the power to compel his troops to purchase health insurance.

I mean what if there was a training accident?

 

[fskimospy]

Congress has the power to draft people

The President as commander in chief of the military would have the power to compel his troops to purchase health insurance.

I mean what if there was a training accident?

Ahh, so you're saying that Congress DOES have the right to force people to buy private products pursuant to the exercise of it's constitutionally granted powers. Thanks!

 

[xj0hnx]

Nope, sorry.

I was responding to Matt1970's claim that people had never been forced to purchase anything in the history of our country. The militia act of 1792 explicitly proves this to be false.

No it doesn't.

2nd Militia Act of 1792:
"Every citizen shall, within six months, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and an absak, a pouch containing a box with no less than 24 cartridges"

Provide isn't must purchase.

 

[Atreus21]

So then why is Scalia's broccoli argument so absurd?

 

[Fern]

OT: what is an absak?

It appears to be a knapsack:

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

Comparing the list of required equipment listed above to that of Washington's list indicates it is a knapsack.

Fern

 

[nehalem256]

Ahh, so you're saying that Congress DOES have the right to force people to buy private products pursuant to the exercise of it's constitutionally granted powers. Thanks!

No it has at most the right to force MEMBERS OF THE MILITIA to purchase products necessary for military duty.

 

[nehalem256]

Suppose they simply levied the non-insurance mandate as a tax for everyone, and then provided a tax rebate if you purchased health insurance. Would there be any practical difference?

Well they could not have spent 2+ years saying it was not a tax for one.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Well they could not have spent 2+ years saying it was not a tax for one.

Who cares? They can call it a rutabaga for all it matters. There's nothing inherently new here, just a bunch of right-wingers shrieking from the rafters as usual.

 

[Cerb]

It appears to be a knapsack:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

Comparing the list of required equipment listed above to that of Washington's list indicates it is a knapsack.

Fern

TY.

Well they could not have spent 2+ years saying it was not a tax for one.

I don't often agree with you, but yeah, they pretty well stepped on their crank with that...

 

[lopri]

The answer is in the title.

The point wasn't to force people to purchase weapons. The point was to raise a militia: A power of Congress/federal govt plainly enumerated in the Constitution.

Has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare and its mandate.

Fern

It has something to do with Obamacare. Yes, the Militia Clause and the Commerce clause are different things, but we are not talking about the difference in ends here, but whether a legislation is proper or improper.

Obamacare's CC (Commerce Clause) and N/P (Necessary and Proper, or General Welfare Clause) defense goes like this:

1. Congress can regulate health care and/or insurance market (interstate commerce).
2. "Guaranteed issues" or "Community Ratings" are such regulations.
3. Congress also determined, in order to achieve/sustain the goal of nearly-universal coverage, it is necessary to have everyone get insurance. ("Minimum Coverage" provision)

The ACA proponents/opponents agree with everything above. The opponents, however, claim that while it may be necessary to have everyone buy insurance to achieve the universal coverage, it is not proper to do so. (here the theory of "action/inaction" comes in)

The Militia act proves otherwise. Yes, the point was to raise militia, not to regulate commerce. But it shows that requiring people to purchase something (read: individual mandate) was not considered an improper way of achieving that goal.

 

[fskimospy]

No it doesn't.

2nd Militia Act of 1792:
"Every citizen shall, within six months, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and an absak, a pouch containing a box with no less than 24 cartridges"

Provide isn't must purchase.

Then the individual mandate for health care isn't a 'must purchase' either as you are only required to be covered by insurance, not be paying for it yourself.

You really didn't think that one through.

 

[fskimospy]

No it has at most the right to force MEMBERS OF THE MILITIA to purchase products necessary for military duty.

Life expectancy in 1800 was about 36 years. The militia act automatically enrolled all men 18-45 in this militia. So your argument is that the government can't force the people to buy a product, but what they can do is say that basically every man in the entire country is now arbitrarily a member of some organization and then force them to buy a product. Totally different!

Little did I know that the ACA's first line should have been 'all people in the US are now part of a militia'. I'm sure your novel constitutional scholarship is going big places.

 

[Iron Wolf]

It has something to do with Obamacare. Yes, the Militia Clause and the Commerce clause are different things, but we are not talking about the difference in ends here, but whether a legislation is proper or improper.

Obamacare's CC (Commerce Clause) and N/P (Necessary and Proper, or General Welfare Clause) defense goes like this:

1. Congress can regulate health care and/or insurance market (interstate commerce).
2. "Guaranteed issues" or "Community Ratings" are such regulations.
3. Congress also determined, in order to achieve/sustain the goal of nearly-universal coverage, it is necessary to have everyone get insurance. ("Minimum Coverage" provision)

The ACA proponents/opponents agree with everything above. The opponents, however, claim that while it may be necessary to have everyone buy insurance to achieve the universal coverage, it is not proper to do so. (here the theory of "action/inaction" comes in)

The Militia act proves otherwise. Yes, the point was to raise militia, not to regulate commerce. But it shows that requiring people to purchase something (read: individual mandate) was not considered an improper way of achieving that goal.

Obama's justifications for the new law are irrelevant. The Supreme Court said so. The new law is only contitutional inasmuch as it is a tax, and the federal government has an apparently unlimited power to levy taxes, for whatever purpose it wishes.

I'm still not sure why people are not more upset over this broad expansion of government bureaucracy, power, and instrusiveness into our lives, not to mention what it is going to do to our pocketbooks.

Even if the government doesn't decide at some point that the economy is suffering and to fix it we all need to go buy new cars or pay a $5,000 fine like some have postulated, the fact is, we are going to be stuck paying increased health insurance premiums and increased taxes to pay for universal coverage. People who don't see that their disposable income just got a lot smaller are burying their head in the sand.

Who is going to pay for all of the uninsured and uninsurable? Most people that don't have insurance now are either illegals who will never pay taxes, or too poor, or who have lost their jobs. People who can't pay into the system, so taxpayers foot the bill, or we give more of the country to China.

I don't relish having to take state insurance when my company drops me because it is less expensive to pay the fine, but it's not like I have a choice now anyway.

One argument I don't get is that there will be a sudden shortage of doctors. People in this country already have access to medical care. It's not like millions are dying due to lack of it. People are not suddenly going to get more sick and feel the need to see a doctor more often just because they have insurance. One good side effect is that maybe this will give the state an incentive to create a 1984-like system to enforce healthy lifestyles on people to lower medical costs. I know a lot of companies are already trying it, but maybe it will have more weight if the state is behind it.

I really think it is a slippery slope. Maybe we should just give all of our money to the government, and work for free, and they will provide for us everything they determine that we need.

 

[fskimospy]

We already pay for the uninsured and the uninsureable. It's strange that on one hand you are complaining that insurance rates are going to go up but then on the other are saying that the amount of care going out will not go up. Those two don't make any sense together.

As for the government having some new power, that's silliness. The government has always had such powers. No one disputes that the government could tax you $5,000 tomorrow and go buy you a car with it, yet it is tyranny when the government says go buy a car yourself or we'll tax you $5,000. Absolute silliness.

 

[Cerb]

Obama's justifications for the new law are irrelevant. The Supreme Court said so. The new law is only contitutional inasmuch as it is a tax, and the federal government has an apparently unlimited power to levy taxes, for whatever purpose it wishes.

I'm still not sure why people are not more upset over this broad expansion of government bureaucracy, power, and instrusiveness into our lives, not to mention what it is going to do to our pocketbooks.

Because, despite the poor quality of the law, it does have some good measures in it, and bad implementations will hopefully force better implementations in the future.

One argument I don't get is that there will be a sudden shortage of doctors. People in this country already have access to medical care. It's not like millions are dying due to lack of it. People are not suddenly going to get more sick and feel the need to see a doctor more often just because they have insurance. One good side effect is that maybe this will give the state an incentive to create a 1984-like system to enforce healthy lifestyles on people to lower medical costs. I know a lot of companies are already trying it, but maybe it will have more weight if the state is behind it.

It's not so much that we'll run out of doctors, as it is that doctor supply is currently being controlled in a way that makes them more valuable than their skills naturally are. It is one of the reasons for high costs as it stands, now (one of the more minor ones, in terms of money, but an annoying ethical issue w/ the AMA).

 

[michal1980]

We already pay for the uninsured and the uninsureable. It's strange that on one hand you are complaining that insurance rates are going to go up but then on the other are saying that the amount of care going out will not go up. Those two don't make any sense together.

Right now, we only pay for the unisnured that happen to need medical care.

After ACA, we will pay for everyone that needs, and does not need care.

Before ACA, uninsured with a cold = stay at home, or tough it out

After ACA, insured with a cold = call a dr, see a pharmist, etc etc.


Only in a liberals world, can you supply more of something while saving money.

 

[Matt1970]

2nd Militia Act of 1792:
"Every citizen shall, within six months, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and an absak, a pouch containing a box with no less than 24 cartridges"

- signed by George Washington

So not only has it happened in the history of our country, it happened almost immediately after the ratification of the Constitution by the very first president. I'm not sure how George Washington came up with it though, unfortunately he is not here for you to ask so his reasoning might remain forever 'beyond you'.

I am sorry, I should have said in the last 10 generations then. BTW, that law was never enforced and eventually repealed.

 

[Svnla]

Heh. Failure to recognize that luck, fortune, joss plays a significant role in our lives is a common failing of people who are full of themselves.

I'll readily admit that I've been lucky, beginning with the accident of my birth. I have no physical deformities, and have been blessed with what is apparently slightly higher than average intelligence. I was born in this country to a family of moderate means, who believed in work & the benefits thereof, at a time & in a place where I received an entirely decent public education. I was fortunate to have other innate talents wrt machinery that have allowed me to make a decent living.

Little of that was really my doing, at all. I suspect that you've enjoyed many of the same advantages, and were really quite fortunate to have entered this country as a legal immigrant. Millions of others who would do so have not been so lucky.

So, uhh, count your blessings as blessings, not as a platform for some sort of moral superiority, some way to degrade others as if your successes weren't made largely possible by circumstances beyond your control. Obviously, you've taken the luck you've had and made good use of it, which is commendable.

That doesn't give you the right to be a self righteous jerk, or to climb up on your pity pot of being a hard working Asian victimized by the rest of us. It's not like anybody here could tell w/o your announcing it.

With all the text you typed and you were still unable to dispute my statements about native born US citizens that are still in the bottom of the totem pole. Don't they have very much similar opportunities or "luck" as typical American citizens? Don't you think most of their problems were due to self inflicted such as drop out of school, out of wedlock kids, violent crimes, illegal drugs,etc.? Would Donald Trump's son have a much easier path in life than a son of a trash collector? Sure. Would Donald Trump's son or people like him have more "luck" than a son of a trash collector if that trash collector's son would not even bother to go to school, would involve in gang/drugs/crimes? I don't think so.

Since you mentioned your own experience so I will return the favor. When I went to part time graduate school (company paid for everything) straight right after my full time 8 to 5 job for several years, my former co workers were laughing and having fun at bars and clubs. Fast forward now, that place is about to close down, those folks have no college, no other skill, nothing to fall back on. So my sweat and tears and hard work for several years = all luck? Those former co-workers that had the exact same chance as me to enhance their skill/knowledge but they CHOOSE not to take it = no luck?

I am not putting down anyone or bragging. I am just telling a spade as a spade and not into the politicial corrrectness game.

Edit: Here are two totally opposite situations.

1. Hard work and sucessfull = http://www.love4utah.com/

Mia recalls both parents working hard to earn a living, her father at times taking on second jobs cleaning toilets to pay for school for their three children. On the day of Mia’s college orientation, her father said something to her that would become the ethos for her life: “Mia, your mother and I never took a handout.You will not be a burden to society. You will give back.”

2. Keeping it real goes wrong = http://news.yahoo.com/insight-florida-man-sees-cruel-face-u-justice-050157061.html

When he was arrested on December 23, 2010, Davis was an unemployed high school dropout living with an aunt in Goulds, Florida, a poor, predominantly black neighborhood south of Miami.

Yup, it is all luck there.

 

[Fern]

The 2nd Militia Act of 1792 was never brought before the SCOTUS (or any court that I can find for that matter) so we don't know if it was Constitutional or not.

Fern