DOJ Files Its ACA (a.k.a. Obamacare) Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm required by state law to carry auto insurance, and many kinds of businesses are required to carry insurance or post bond- the Federal govt requiring me to carry medical insurance is no different.

The Federal govt isn't requiring that you have medical insurance because is does not have that right under the Constitution. So instead it is going about it by punishing those who do not financially. The problem is that if the Federal government determines that it wants you to do something it can by financially compelling you to do so. That makes the Constitution effectively useless as a protection and the people dependent on the good will of those in power. This is great news, that is if it's for what you want. If not? Well that's not our problem is it?

 

[xBiffx]

I'm required by state law to carry auto insurance, and many kinds of businesses are required to carry insurance or post bond- the Federal govt requiring me to carry medical insurance is no different.

+1 to what both cybrsage and Hayabusa Rider said about this.

I only have to add that you brought up a state law, much, much different than a federal law especially since the state has this power but the fed does not. Again, powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the fed are reserved for the states.

Also, you are only required to have car insurance because you own and drive a vehicle. You are not required to own and drive that vehicle are you? You can argue that it is a necessity but no one is forcing you into having that vehicle, there are alternatives. Also, the business insurance and bonds that you speak of are required because those entities choose to conduct business in a particular state. Just like the car insurance, they are not required to conduct that business, it is by choice that they do.

The health insurance issue is a vastly different thing. The people who are for it are saying that you are required to have health insurance just by being alive. You don't have a choice in this matter, unless you are advocating mass suicide as a way out. You do not have to engage in anything in order to be required to have it, just exist. The government is trying to penalize those who choose to do nothing, and doing nothing is their God given right in this case. Now if states required car insurance even if you don't own and drive a car, then you might have a case. This is exactly what advocates for the health insurance issue are saying. They are requiring you have insurance even if you, the person who has the right to chose, don't have anything you deem worthy of insurance. If you are healthy or just plain don't want to pay for it, that is your right.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I think the problem with this is that in order to really work, national healthcare really must be national. If we instead have 50 different healthcare systems, it becomes a race to the bottom to manage costs. The states with good, but costly plans will be disadvantaged by states with cheap plans. People with high healthcare needs will tend to migrate to the states with the best plans, thus increasing their costs and rewarding states with cheap plans.

This is much the same reason why group insurance is less expensive than individual plans. When everyone's in the same group, risk and costs are spread evenly. This is in contrast to individual plans where the most likely customers are also the people who will be the most costly.

^This. This really has to be a federal issue. Remember, when the Constitution was written, there were not 50 states. I don't know if they foresaw this many states in the United States when it was written. Just like with 50 people, it will be hard to all agree on the same plan or to even have a plan.

It just seems so hard to apply common sense in politics.

 

[theeedude]

I agree with much of what you said. My personal view is that (just like in the EU) state run healtcare should be done at the State level and not the Fed Gov level (like in the EU how healthcare is done at the national level vs at the EU level).

Agree it should be done at a National level. US is One Nation.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Agree it should be done at a National level. US is One Nation.

And that one nation has many levels of government all of which are intended to be subservient to the people, not their ruler. What it has become is one nation ruled by two parties who rule the governments. That's why we haven't heard about improving health care in a significant and rational manner, well unless one likes party rule.

 

[woolfe9999]

The Federal govt isn't requiring that you have medical insurance because is does not have that right under the Constitution. So instead it is going about it by punishing those who do not financially. The problem is that if the Federal government determines that it wants you to do something it can by financially compelling you to do so. That makes the Constitution effectively useless as a protection and the people dependent on the good will of those in power. This is great news, that is if it's for what you want. If not? Well that's not our problem is it?

How is the Constitution useless for protecting people from government if the SCOTUS upholds the healthcare mandate? Are you saying that this would mean the Constitution accords individuals zero protection from government control? Hyperbolize much?

 

[piasabird]

Every state will be given a waiver.

Either no waivers should be issued, or the law should be declared unconstitutional. A waiver in unconstitutional, because it is unequal application of the law. So no waivers for Pelosi, Wal-Mart or anyone else.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How is the Constitution useless for protecting people from government if the SCOTUS upholds the healthcare mandate? Are you saying that this would mean the Constitution accords individuals zero protection from government control? Hyperbolize much?

I'm saying that if the government determines that something can have a value attached to it then it can use this means to "direct" people to do it's will or face the penalty. Now maybe you accept this as a valid role of government but I do not. Tell me, what are the limits here? If it is possible to punish someone for not doing what is not not required, precisely what besides the good intentions of the federal government are the limits? Only those things which are explicitly protected like free speech? The Constitution was an attempt to limit government by granting IT not the people certain powers. Certainly it doesn't require you to do anything and it's not a punishment any more than seizing your property because someone brought a joint into your home. I do not welcome this can of worms that you seem to embrace as perpetually innocuous.

 

[cybrsage]

Agree it should be done at a National level. US is One Nation.

The US is E Pluribus Unum....one composed of many.

You also did not understand what I said. I likened the EU to the US Fed Gov and the EU member states to US States. Ask any European if they want the EU to run a single healthcare system for all EU member states and you will get back an almost unanimous BIT ME DOUGH BOY!!

It would fail, for two big reasons. First is that the more overhead you put onto something the less efficient (and therefor costly) it is. Second is that each EU member state (and also each US State) has slightly different needs for their slightly different peoples and environments.

Florida has a much higher need for elderly care while Texas does not have much need for frostbite care.

 

[theeedude]

And that one nation has many levels of government all of which are intended to be subservient to the people, not their ruler. What it has become is one nation ruled by two parties who rule the governments. That's why we haven't heard about improving health care in a significant and rational manner, well unless one likes party rule.

ACA will improve health care in a significant and rational manner, because Democrats were willing to pay the political price and put country above party.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

ACA will improve health care in a significant and rational manner, because Democrats were willing to pay the political price and put country above party.

Nonsense. They never expended the effort to understand the state of healthcare and it's needs. They didn't attempt to get a grasp of the situation either because they are really that stupid or couldn't risk creating something that they might not have direct political control over no matter how beneficial it might be.

The Dems contrived a massive bill about that which it didn't bother to attempt to understand then they and the Republicans fought in a way that a grade school kid would understand as being unacceptable.

Country above party? Bullshit.

 

[theeedude]

Nonsense. They never expended the effort to understand the state of healthcare and it's needs. They didn't attempt to get a grasp of the situation either because they are really that stupid or couldn't risk creating something that they might not have direct political control over no matter how beneficial it might be.

The Dems contrived a massive bill about that which it didn't bother to attempt to understand then they and the Republicans fought in a way that a grade school kid would understand as being unacceptable.

Country above party? Bullshit.

Free rider problem that ACA addresses with individual mandate is fundamental to current health care system. Addressing this problem through laws is essential to proper functioning of capitalism, it's exactly the role that government has to play in a free market. There are two ways to address it, the "sane Republican" (circa 1993, oxymoron nowadays) way, which is requiring individuals to not free ride and cover their own risk. The other way is the liberal way of having the government collect taxes to cover everyone's risk, like Medicare. What present day Republicans are working hard to accomplish now is to get rid of the "sane Republican" way in the courts Which I am fine with, because I support Medicare for all. If you think a system that allows free riding in a free market will survive in the long run, you keep on believing that. I'll place my bets on it choking, and if by that time, the conservative SCOTUS rules out the only viable alternative to universal single payer, I'll just have to take yes for an answer.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Free rider problem that ACA addresses with individual mandate is fundamental to current health care system. Addressing this problem through laws is essential to proper functioning of capitalism, it's exactly the role that government has to play in a free market. There are two ways to address it, the "sane Republican" (circa 1993, oxymoron nowadays) way, which is requiring individuals to not free ride and cover their own risk.

Translated you mean there is only one way which is acceptable to you and the Democrats. Other options by people more in touch with healthcare haven't been explored.

If you think a system that allows free riding in a free market will survive in the long run, you keep on believing that. I'll place my bets on it choking, and if by that time, the conservative SCOTUS rules out the only viable alternative to universal single payer, I'll just have to take yes for an answer.

The SCOTUS isn't going to require universal single payer.

It does appear however that is what you want. If the Democrats were to use trickery and diversion and perhaps outright deception to get it would you approve? That's a yes or no question BTW.

 

[theeedude]

Translated you mean there is only one way which is acceptable to you and the Democrats. Other options by people more in touch with healthcare haven't been explored.

Universal single payer is also acceptable and should be explored.

The SCOTUS isn't going to require universal single payer.
It does appear however that is what you want. If the Democrats were to use trickery and diversion and perhaps outright deception to get it would you approve? That's a yes or no question BTW.

No, I want to use the process of elimination by Republicans themselves.
Are you arguing that Republicans have been tricked and deceived into opposing the individual mandate? Maybe so. But they weren't tricked and deceived by the Democrats. If their own self delusion eliminates individual mandate as an option and removes a diversion on the road to universal single payer, I will gladly take it.

 

[Fern]

Except vast supermajorities of Americans agree with a woman's right to choose.



Again you're confused and obfuscating; if the democratic process dictates that such a thing (as unlikely as it is) should occur because of some dire, say, economic issue that must be addressed, then the SCOTUS is very likely to uphold it due to precedent/rational basis test. If you're still confused see my previous posts.

As before, you are seriously misstating the poll you link.

From your 1st link:

As is easily seen in the second chart Americans are split on this issue. 47% self-report as pro-life and 47% self-report as pro-choice.

In the third chart, almost equal numbers self report legal under all circumstance or illegal under all circumstances with the remainder legal (or illegal) under certain circumstances. This is perhaps better refined in the fourth chart where the legal under all or most circumstances total 39% v the illegal under most or all circumstances total 58%.

The data presented in no way supports your claim that the "vast super majority" support pro-choice. Our country remains divided on the issue.

Fern

 

[cybrsage]

ACA will improve health care in a significant and rational manner, because Democrats were willing to pay the political price and put country above party.

My sarcasm meter registered your post. Well played.

 

[theeedude]

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[cybrsage]

Whatever floats your boat.

Wait, I am sorry...I mixed up my meters. It was my moonbat sensor. My bad. Please accept my apologies, I am sorry for saying you were being sarcastic with your insanely stupid post.

 

[Ldir]

Wait, I am sorry...I am sorry for....being....insanely stupid.

We will forgive you if you go away.

 

[Bowfinger]

Translated you mean there is only one way which is acceptable to you and the Democrats. Other options by people more in touch with healthcare haven't been explored. ...

I will confess to being a bit blind here. I can't see any solution that ensures all Americans have decent health care except for something either provided, or at least mandated at a federal level. You keep suggesting the Obama administration should have explored the other options, however. Fair enough. What other options do you see? I agree with you that the current package is a mess. I am sincerely interested in better ideas.

 

[Bowfinger]

We will forgive you if you go away.

Well played. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and Cybrsage has shown no scruples in altering others' posts.

 

[xBiffx]

I will confess to being a bit blind here. I can't see any solution that ensures all Americans have decent health care except for something either provided, or at least mandated at a federal level. You keep suggesting the Obama administration should have explored the other options, however. Fair enough. What other options do you see? I agree with you that the current package is a mess. I am sincerely interested in better ideas.

I have to say that I can't disagree with the logic in your post one bit. Ensuring all Americans have decent health care is not something that I think can happen without a mandate either. Unfortunately, we live in the United States which was founded under the rules within the Constitution. That Constitution does not allow for the Federal Government to mandate a thing such as health care. So I am afraid that the only way its going to happen this way is if the state you live in mandates it. So basically, healthcare will not be a guarantee for all Americans because every state isn't going to adopt this sort of mandate. Sorry, again we live in the real world here. There are many liberal ideas that I can't disagree with on principle because wouldn't the world be great if we could enact them. It's just too bad that we don't live in Wonderland.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I will confess to being a bit blind here. I can't see any solution that ensures all Americans have decent health care except for something either provided, or at least mandated at a federal level. You keep suggesting the Obama administration should have explored the other options, however. Fair enough. What other options do you see? I agree with you that the current package is a mess. I am sincerely interested in better ideas.

A hybrid government/private system? If there is a system that the government has who runs it? What other options are there? Who knows? It seems that no one had sufficient interest to find out. Not only that, but coverage is not health care. The moment when there was open debate was the one to seize and work on fixing a system that must be able to deal with the staggering problems that will face us in a mere 20 years.

 

[cybrsage]

We will forgive you if you go away.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you for wanting to be like me so much that you copy what I do. You will be happy with the way your life improves almost immediately when you stop being like you and start being more like me.

When you need advice on what to do, just ask. I know you are already used to doing and thinking what others tell you to do and think, so it will not be too big of a shift for you to simply do and think what I tell you to do and think.

 

[cybrsage]

We all agree that Europeans have had a long time to experiment with public healthcare, right? I am going to assume everyone agreed.

I think we all agree that each individual European nation would never want an EU centralized healthcare system forced on their individual states because they know it would be a cluster of an implimentation and it would suck far worse than their current systems.

Why do people suddenly think a US fed gov system would be better than individual US State systems when they already know an EU based system would be worse than the individual EU state systems?