Why I think Obamacare will be upheld completely

[Anarchist420]

A friend of mine just said tonight is the eve of the tyrannical U.S. government's ruling on a tyrannical law against Nature's God. Due to that, I'm giving my prediction and explanation as follows:

I no longer think we'll ever have non-profit govt run health care (this country's government will collapse before the Republicans would give up military spending to fund health care), but like Dr. Paul said, everything the government does is a mandate... which means that there is really no limit (and there never has been).

I also think Obama's team changing their defense from interstate commerce to necessary and proper is foreshadowing... as the Necessary and Proper clause is nothing more than the classic statism that the Antifederalists warned about.

All of that said, I don't think this starts any completely new precedent as John Marshall set it about 200 years ago. Obamacare's public defenders changed to the necessary and proper clause for a reason (i.e., think about how many precedents set by John Marshall haven't been overturned and how Republicans love him and have always loved him), as the Federalist Party's official color was black for a reason (i.e., they wanted a dark future for America).

One of the reasons I quote John Randolph of Roanoke in my siqnature is because he tried to stop John Marshall's ass and he was the Dr. Ron Paul of his day (well, in terms of public policy). Unfortunately, Jefferson gave the Randolph Amendment no support.

Anyway... what do you think about my reasoning on this topic? Is it faulty?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I don't know why I bother responding but I doubt it will be upheld. It's not the right direction to go at all. It was a noble concept but now is not the time as the country has more pressing matters to concern itself with and what it should be (UniHealth) has been bastardized to an Unconstitutional extent. I hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing and gets this issue off the table so everyone can move on for now.

 

[Doppel]

I predict it will be upheld more or less, irrespective of my thoughts on it.

 

[Thump553]

Based on the law and several hundred years of precedent it should be a slam dunk to be upheld. In fact I originally thought (and still do) that the lawsuits brought by GOP state attorney generals were frivilous litigation.

But I've grown very cynical about Scalia, Alito and especially Roberts-who talked a good game during his nomination but has proven to be a remarkably activist justice determined to rewrite the law. I now predict it is almost a certainty the health care bill will be found unconstituational in a 5-4 patently political decision.

Between Bush v. Gore, Citizens United and probably this decision, this Supreme Court is an embarassment at best.

Incidentally there was an article in the paper just the other day that approximately 45-50% of employers are strongly considering giving employees cash and letting them buy their own plans under Obamacare. This ruling will kill that trend dead, most likely-instead we will just have more employers dropping health coverage altogether (based from personal experience, without the pools Obamacare is going to set up, it cost several times more to buy health insurance on your own than through a group-even with perfect health).

Hopefully I will have to eat crow on this post, but I doubt it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Based on the law and several hundred years of precedent it should be a slam dunk to be upheld

Several hundred years of precedent? What case was that?

 

[lopri]

Several hundred years of precedent? What case was that?

McCulloch v. Maryland

 

[lopri]

Obamacare is no more "unprecedented" than a national bank, national military, or social security. Every single rationale given by the opponents are either 1) invented ad-hoc (most of them), or 2) completely reactionary (brave few).

 

[jhu]

Why I think this isn't news: the Supreme Court has not given their decision yet.

 

[glenn1]

Let the Democrats have their shitty law; they don't even like it themselves and are only supporting it because their side passed it. The honest ones no longer even buy their own rationalizations they used to pass it or the self-deception that "the American people will support it once they find out what's in it." They should feel relieved if the SCOTUS strikes it down, the albatross will be off their necks and they can run on an election platform of the "universal healthcare" that progressives seem to crave.

 

[sportage]

Have you heard about the refunds? Yep... If you have employer health insurance you will be getting a refund thru your employer in the form of cash, or by lowered paycheck rates.
Why?
Obamacare.
Insurance companies were forced to refund over 1 billion dollars (thats billion with a B) of the money they took from you, and could not account for when spending on actual direct healthcare related costs.
This would have been 1 billion in their pockets to fund elections and buy more super pack ads.
Now, it's your money. They must repay it back to YOU.

Just one of the many Obamacare benefits going into effect now and within the next year from Obamacare. So take note folks!
To ensure NO healthcare insurance customer pays more than 11% of their income into their own healthcare benefit costs.
Yep! Just another benefit from Obamacare.
More bottom line health benefits out of every dollar, to save customers money.
And limit what insurance providers can do outside health related issues with YOUR money.

So now you are a little more enlightened as to why Romney and republicans want to kill Obamcare ASAP. As the final stages of Obamacare goes into effect, republicans know customers will clearly enjoy all the intended benefits.
Republicans don't want you to ever get to that point.
The point where average folks like you and me see through the republican BS about Obamacare vs the hard benefit facts of Obamacare.
They don't want you to know the truth.
They are not involved or concerned with your best interests. PERIOD!
Obamacare is!!!
.
.
.

 

[sportage]

Better add a link.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/-1-billion-refund-coming-from-insurers-20120426

 

[Sulaco]

Is the OP in High School? Or maybe a freshman in college?

Everytime I read one of these threads/posts, I get the distinct "Someone just learned this in Social Studies and now thinks they're an expert" vibe.

 

[sactoking]

snip

Ummm... you do know that the MLR argument is disingenuous right now since the 2014 provisions haven't gone into effect yet, right?

Aside from that, the average MLR rebate this year is expected to be ~$4 per insured person. Whoop dee doo. It will cost more than $4 per insured person to administer the MLR program, so it's a net loss to society and will be reflected in higher premium costs.

Speaking of which, you do know that health insurers are projecting premiums to increase 20-30% in 2014 as a result of ACA, don't you?

 

[OCGuy]

OP repeats whatever his whacky professor spouts off in class that day.

 

[lopri]

Let the Democrats have their shitty law;

That's the right way to go about this. Both Repubs and Dems agree on the ends - Affordable health care for the U.S. citizens. They have differing ideas on means to achieve that ends. If you think Obamacare is wrong/stupid/sadistic/whatever, you should vote to repeal it. Inventing a noble constitutional theory out of thin air "just for this one case" (e.g. Bush v. Gore) is not how we should govern ourselves.

 

[nageov3t]

does it really matter?

as soon as Republicans take power again, they have the precedent set to provide waivers to all states who don't want to comply with the laws and refuse to prosecute.

personally, I hope it will be overturned, because the individual mandate feels like it opens up all kinds of avenues for abuse, but I won't loose much sleep if it isn't because I think more of the changes will be a net-positive.

 

[lopri]

Ah.. the slippery slope. You still need the inertia. (hint: votes)

Edit: And the slippery slope cuts both ways. Current opponents of Obamacare (in legal/academic circles) are a lot more ambitious than simply repealing the Obamacare. ^^

 

[PokerGuy]

Ah.. the slippery slope. You still need the inertia. (hint: votes)

Yeah, and we all know the slippery slope stuff is just nonsense and scare mongering. The slippery slope people were whining about slippery slope in NYC with the food and drink bans..... oh, wait.

Sorry, I'm not comfortable with handing the government the power to make everyone purchase a third party product they might neither want nor need.

 

[fskimospy]

Based on the law and several hundred years of precedent it should be a slam dunk to be upheld. In fact I originally thought (and still do) that the lawsuits brought by GOP state attorney generals were frivilous litigation.

But I've grown very cynical about Scalia, Alito and especially Roberts-who talked a good game during his nomination but has proven to be a remarkably activist justice determined to rewrite the law. I now predict it is almost a certainty the health care bill will be found unconstituational in a 5-4 patently political decision.

Between Bush v. Gore, Citizens United and probably this decision, this Supreme Court is an embarassment at best.

Incidentally there was an article in the paper just the other day that approximately 45-50% of employers are strongly considering giving employees cash and letting them buy their own plans under Obamacare. This ruling will kill that trend dead, most likely-instead we will just have more employers dropping health coverage altogether (based from personal experience, without the pools Obamacare is going to set up, it cost several times more to buy health insurance on your own than through a group-even with perfect health).

Hopefully I will have to eat crow on this post, but I doubt it.

I'm pretty confident that Scalia will rule against it without much trouble. He has ruled that a person growing marijuana in their basement for personal consumption only was interstate commerce to be regulated, but someone's participation in a nationwide system of interconnected health services is not interstate commerce to be regulated. If a future pot case comes up again, he'll switch back without trouble. Damn pot smoking hippies.

That being said, I still expect this to be upheld. The simply enormous weight of legal precedent supporting it will be too much for the court to overturn I think, no matter how much the conservatives want to.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

McCulloch v. Maryland

States aren't taxing federal banks. Non sequitur.

 

[fskimospy]

States aren't taxing federal banks. Non sequitur.

Necessary and proper clause. If Congress is exercising one of its constitutional powers, it also gains the right to enact all other requirements to make that power effective. In this case, interstate commerce regulation.

 

[Anarchist420]

States aren't taxing federal banks. Non sequitur.

You don't seem to follow. John Marshall set the precedent in McCulloch v Maryland so that the necessary and proper clause could be used to validate any law by Congress.

 

[PokerGuy]

the necessary and proper clause could be used to validate any law by Congress.

The way the interstate commerce and necessary and proper clauses have been interpreted, they can pretty much be used to justify any and all actions by congress. The current court doesn't have to abide by those presidents though, they can set a new standard that curtails the previous broad interpretations.

 

[fskimospy]

The way the interstate commerce and necessary and proper clauses have been interpreted, they can pretty much be used to justify any and all actions by congress. The current court doesn't have to abide by those presidents though, they can set a new standard that curtails the previous broad interpretations.

In which case I imagine you will hail the abandonment of precedent and a major alteration of constitutional law as a good and proper judicial decision. This is after you have established a history of complaining about judicial activism.

 

[Atreus21]

In which case I imagine you will hail the abandonment of precedent and a major alteration of constitutional law as a good and proper judicial decision. This is after you have established a history of complaining about judicial activism.

And conversely after leftists have established a history of sneering at complaints of judicial activism.

If precedent provides the government with almost universal latitude in its ability to compel me to buy whatever it wishes, then by all means I will hail the rebuke of that precedent.

I remember a significant part of the hearings focused on challenging the feds to identify a limiting principle to the power which legally sanctions the individual mandate, and they had little response to that.