Why hasn't this so-called conservative court overturned Obamacare already?

[manimal]

My problem with this line of reasoning is two-fold.

First, current insurance providers don't provide interstate health insurance, so they're not included in the commerce clause.

Second, the government seems to be circumventing this by mandating that everyone be forced to buy health insurance, and that health insurance companies be forced to sell it to everyone.

The first is certainly unconstitutional without the second. The case has to be whether or not the US Gov't has the authority to mandate everyone to buy a private good. At that point, it becomes a case for the commerce clause.

All this is beside the point, though, because there is no "healthcare reform" of any kind in the bill. It doesn't fix any of the problems, and it doesn't provide health care to any more people that currently receive it.

My question is can the mandate's fine be seen as a tax? If it can be interpreted as a tax then the mandate is legal.

 

[Tab]

Why hasn't this so-called conservative court overturned Obamacare already?

Because,

(1) It's good for the Country
(2) Most people like it
(3) The lawsuits will never have enough funding
(4) The wouldn't strike it down

 

[Rainsford]

My problem with this line of reasoning is two-fold.

First, current insurance providers don't provide interstate health insurance, so they're not included in the commerce clause.

Second, the government seems to be circumventing this by mandating that everyone be forced to buy health insurance, and that health insurance companies be forced to sell it to everyone.

The first is certainly unconstitutional without the second. The case has to be whether or not the US Gov't has the authority to mandate everyone to buy a private good. At that point, it becomes a case for the commerce clause.

The US Government has mandated that everyone get car insurance for quite some time now without any constitutional issues cropping up. And as far as I'm aware, almost ALL health insurance is "interstate". First of all, the vast majority of health insurance companies do business across state lines...I don't buy health insurance from a company located in Maryland, for example. Secondly, health insurance usually works, more or less, outside your home state under at least some circumstances. Both of which make health insurance "interstate" as far as I'm concerned.

All this is beside the point, though, because there is no "healthcare reform" of any kind in the bill. It doesn't fix any of the problems, and it doesn't provide health care to any more people that currently receive it.

Well that's a reason you don't like the policy, which has nothing at all to do with whether or not it's constitutional.

 

[SickBeast]

If people would stop overturning Obama perhaps he could get something done...

 

[waggy]

The US Government has mandated that everyone get car insurance for quite some time now without any constitutional issues cropping up.

I don't need to get car insurance and if i decide i don't want it i don't get a federal "tax".

I will NEED health insurance if i don't the goverment charges me a "tax" for it.

 

[SickBeast]

TBH Obama's health care plan is stupid in that it gives even more money to the insurance companies. IMO he should have gone with a system that parallels the Canadian heathcare system.

 

[shortylickens]

Because,

(1) It's good for the Country
(2) Most people like it
(3) The lawsuits will never have enough funding
(4) The wouldn't strike it down

Number 1 is just plain wrong. Number 2 is debatable. Number 3 is probably correct. Number 4 makes no sense.

 

[Tab]

Number 1 is just plain wrong. Number 2 is debatable. Number 3 is probably correct. Number 4 makes no sense.

Nope.

 

[shortylickens]

Nope.

Touche.

 

[RabidMongoose]

My problem with this line of reasoning is two-fold.

First, current insurance providers don't provide interstate health insurance, so they're not included in the commerce clause.

Sorry to break this to you, but that's not a problem under current Supreme Court jurisprudence. Since health insurance is an economic activity, the Court just analyzes it under a total aggregation...so they'll say that an aggregation of a bunch of insurance providers will have a substantial impact on interstate commerce.

It's how the federal government can regulate, for example, wheat that is grown by a farmer, but even though he only uses it for personal consumption.

 

[joebloggs10]

Because it's partially on topic and I didn't want to dig out the other threads:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Really, who didn't see this coming? It's the perfect storm of moral hazard and adverse selection.

 

[Obsoleet]

It won't be overturned. The plan is good and Constitutional just as all the various socialistic parts of our lives like public roads, EMTALA, firefighters, police, public schools and universities, any public service.
It's not expanding Medicare to all, not perfect, and not ideal, but it's better than nothing. The man is a bold leader who is not afraid to act.