Why I think Obamacare will be upheld completely

[fskimospy]

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.

And I will continue to sneer at them, what's your point? Conservatives are the ones who complain about it, but it's pretty transparent that their objections to it disappear so long as they get what they want.

As for your concerns about the issue itself, I have very unfortunate news for you. The government has already had that power for a very, very long time. Even if the individual mandate is struck down the government will retain that power, it will just have to use it in an even more restrictive way. (it could just tax you, buy health insurance for you without your input and give it to you, in effect forcing you to buy whatever it wishes)

Hope you enjoy!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

It was the supremacy clause at question. The conflict was about who had ultimate control. The federal government could do what necessary and proper to resolve that issue. Not, "whatever it wants" but to resolve a conflict.

 

[fskimospy]

It was the supremacy clause at question. The conflict was about who had ultimate control. The federal government could do what necessary and proper to resolve that issue. Not, "whatever it wants" but to resolve a conflict.

It was a general statement of congressional power not limited to any one clause.

 

[Atreus21]

And I will continue to sneer at them, what's your point?

Point is that it shows what happens when the shoes on the other foot. The claim of judicial activism is just dress up for the claim that you don't like the court's decision. We saw it with Citizen's United. We'll see it again here, regardless of whether it's upheld or struck down.

Conservatives are the ones who complain about it, but it's pretty transparent that their objections to it disappear so long as they get what they want.

And liberals are no different.

As for your concerns about the issue itself, I have very unfortunate news for you. The government has already had that power for a very, very long time. Even if the individual mandate is struck down the government will retain that power, it will just have to use it in an even more restrictive way. (it could just tax you, buy health insurance for you without your input and give it to you, in effect forcing you to buy whatever it wishes)

Hope you enjoy!

You're essentially saying that as long as government collects taxes, by extension it has the power to force me to buy something. That's quite a leap. You don't draw a distinction between buying something with my tax dollars and saying you will be fined if you don't buy what we tell you? Using this logic, Scalia's broccoli example suddenly doesn't seem so silly.

 

[fskimospy]

Point is that it shows what happens when the shoes on the other foot. The claim of judicial activism is just dress up for the claim that you don't like the court's decision. We saw it with Citizen's United. We'll see it again here, regardless of whether it's upheld or struck down.

And liberals are no different.

The charges of judicial activism at courts unambiguously originated with conservatives. They employ it constantly not only when talking about judicial proceedings, but when selecting judges, etc. To attempt to equate liberals and conservatives on this is downright silly.

You're essentially saying that as long as government collects taxes, by extension it has the power to force me to buy something. That's quite a leap. You don't draw a distinction between buying something with my tax dollars and saying you will be fined if you don't buy what we tell you? Using this logic, Scalia's broccoli example suddenly doesn't seem so silly.

It's not a leap at all. I mean it's exactly identical in what happens, just think about it. You are arguing that Congress cannot force you to buy an insurance policy that costs say, $1,000. Okay. What I'm telling you is that Congress can pass the "health care buying tax of 2012" that will tax you $1,000 and then go buy health insurance with it and give it to you. If you think that requiring you to spend $1k on buying health insurance yourself is manifestly different than taking $1k from you and buying health insurance for you with it in terms of its effects on what Congress can make you buy or not buy.... uhmm... okay.

What is interesting however is that the only ways in which you could argue they do differ are all far worse for your freedom. Congress can tax you $1k to buy you health insurance, but once that money is taxed they aren't actually under any obligation to buy you shit if they don't want to. At least in this case you know you're getting health insurance for it.

And no, Scalia's broccoli argument was stupid. It will remain stupid.

 

[PokerGuy]

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.

You must be confused about what judicial activism refers to. Reconsidering prior rulings is not the same as judicial activism.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

No matter which side you're blindly following I think we all realize this would be a bad thing for the country right at this moment.

 

[nageov3t]

What I'm telling you is that Congress can pass the "health care buying tax of 2012" that will tax you $1,000 and then go buy health insurance with it and give it to you.

so why didn't they?

Congress is perfectly within its rights to pass tax increases to use those funds for whatever (see: social security, medicare), unlike passing a law that compels people to engage in commerce with private companies.

 

[PokerGuy]

The charges of judicial activism at courts unambiguously originated with conservatives.

Sure, and that's because they're often true. In this case, if the court were to throw out the law, I'm sure we'll hear plenty of whining by the left about judicial activism. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

And no, Scalia's broccoli argument was stupid. It will remain stupid.

His argument was great, crystal clear articulation of the issue at hand.

 

[PokerGuy]

No matter which side you're blindly following I think we all realize this would be a bad thing for the country right at this moment.

"This" meaning what? This meaning throwing out the law, upholding the law, or partially upholding it?

 

[Atreus21]

The charges of judicial activism at courts unambiguously originated with conservatives. They employ it constantly not only when talking about judicial proceedings, but when selecting judges, etc. To attempt to equate liberals and conservatives on this is downright silly.

No argument with where it originated. Definitely an argument with liberals who sneer at complaints of judicial activism, and have no problem leveling the accusation when things don't go their way.

It's not a leap at all. I mean it's exactly identical in what happens, just think about it. You are arguing that Congress cannot force you to buy an insurance policy that costs say, $1,000. Okay. What I'm telling you is that Congress can pass the "health care buying tax of 2012" that will tax you $1,000 and then go buy health insurance with it and give it to you. If you think that requiring you to spend $1k on buying health insurance yourself is manifestly different than taking $1k from you and buying health insurance for you with it in terms of its effects on what Congress can make you buy or not buy.... uhmm... okay.

What is interesting however is that the only ways in which you could argue they do differ are all far worse for your freedom. Congress can tax you $1k to buy you health insurance, but once that money is taxed they aren't actually under any obligation to buy you shit if they don't want to. At least in this case you know you're getting health insurance for it.

And no, Scalia's broccoli argument was stupid. It will remain stupid.

So I was correct when I said you believe that simply collecting taxes entitles government to force you to buy anything they want. How is Scalia's broccoli argument stupid then? Using your above example, what's the difference between taxing to buy health insurance and taxing to buy broccoli?

Suddenly I'm very happy that republicans have unwaveringly opposed any tax increases. If we must go to the extreme that taxes can be used to justify the government coercing you into buying whatever they want, then I'll take the opposite extreme that if this is true, then taxes must be reduced at every opportunity, to the greatest extent possible.

 

[PokerGuy]

so why didn't they?

Congress is perfectly within its rights to pass tax increases to use those funds for whatever (see: social security, medicare), unlike passing a law that compels people to engage in commerce with private companies.

They didn't because they knew it would be politically difficult to 'sell' a big tax hike on everyone. That's why it's an important distinction, even if the end result (you paying $1k) doesn't change no matter how they do it.

 

[fskimospy]

so why didn't they?

Congress is perfectly within its rights to pass tax increases to use those funds for whatever (see: social security, medicare), unlike passing a law that compels people to engage in commerce with private companies.

Because they thought this would be a more consumer friendly way to do it, allowing people to choose their own health care.

Additionally, the idea that the government can't force people to engage in commerce is a very new one, and so there really weren't many questions about its constitutionality when enacted. As has been frequently cited before, George Washington himself signed into law an individual mandate that all able bodied men must purchase a firearm.

How someone can say: 'force me to buy health insurance? TYRANNY'! Followed by: 'forcibly take my money and buy me health insurance with it? NO PROBLEM' is truly baffling.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

"This" meaning what? This meaning throwing out the law, upholding the law, or partially upholding it?

Universal Healthcare/Obamacare is not good for anyone, especially right now.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Here's the problem.

They start a plan that, in essence, would be a major improvement to our current situation.

Through much political wrangling, it is narrowed to the extent that private insurance can maintain a significant hold on the insurance industry AND has made a loophole that has been contested all the way up to the supreme court (mandatory participation).

Instead of cutting it down a bit to satisfy objection, they cut the side off it and made something less stable.

If they started with a Universal Basic Care plan first, they would have been able to go on from there using it as a base test and relieving people from feeling nervous about basic preventative care. You could then gradually raise the bar until you get to the point where the only thing a person was paying for would be the "accidental" serious injuries or illnesses. What INSURANCE should really be about (not paying for the broken window from Jr's baseball, but paying for the tornado hit).

There is a good chance that this PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO plan will be struck down. The only reason I feel bad about it is because I know another, BETTER plan is not likely to come out to replace it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Universal Healthcare/Obamacare is not good for anyone, especially right now.

I agree 100%, I was just trying to clarify what you were saying

 

[fskimospy]

So I was correct when I said you believe that simply collecting taxes entitles government to force you to buy anything they want. How is Scalia's broccoli argument stupid then? Using your above example, what's the difference between taxing to buy health insurance and taxing to buy broccoli?

The argument was stupid because of the parallels it was trying to draw. Broccoli and health care are nothing alike. Of course Congress could force you to buy broccoli, the same way it could force you to buy health insurance or a gun. The government is entitled to force you to buy whatever it wants so long as it serves a legitimate government interest, yes. As mentioned above this is not a new thing, it started with George Washington.

As also stated before, I simply find these objections baffling. You freely admit that the government may forcibly take your money and buy you health care with it no matter if it actually meets your needs, and in the name of freedom say you prefer that to them forcing you to buy your own health care that you can tailor to your preferences. Bizarre.

Suddenly I'm very happy that republicans have unwaveringly opposed any tax increases. If we must go to the extreme that taxes can be used to justify the government coercing you into buying whatever they want, then I'll take the opposite extreme that if this is true, then taxes must be reduced at every opportunity, to the greatest extent possible.

Taxes aren't being used to justify anything, I am simply showing you the irrefutable fact that Congress already has the power to compel you to participate in the exact same outcome and has had this power for all of US history. You can do whatever you want with that fact.

I'm very disappointed to see that you are pleased with the Republicans' choice to pursue incredibly irresponsible fiscal policy, however. It is people such as yourself that are enabling these politicians to behave irresponsibly and not to approach fiscal matters in a mature and adult manner. I strongly encourage you to stop allowing such foolishness.

 

[PokerGuy]

The only reason I feel bad about it is because I know another, BETTER plan is not likely to come out to replace it.

A lack of a better future plan doesn't mean keeping this crappy one is a good thing. It's very clear from the polls that voters across the political spectrum really want health care reform. If the law gets tossed, it would force everyone back to the drawing board to come up with something. Maybe the next time they'll come up with something useful, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[PokerGuy]

The government is entitled to force you to buy whatever it wants so long as it serves a legitimate government interest, yes.

I disagree. It can force you to do anything if and only if it has constitutional authority to do so. Legitimate interest or not, if it doesn't have the authority then the government can't force you to do something. Making everyone exercise for 30 minutes each day would certainly serve a "legitimate government interest", but it doesn't have the authority under the constitution to mandate such activity for everyone.

I am simply showing you the irrefutable fact that Congress already has the power to compel you to participate in the exact same outcome and has had this power for all of US history. You can do whatever you want with that fact.

Just because it has the power to compel a certain outcome doesn't mean it has carte blanche in how to go about it.

incredibly irresponsible fiscal policy

Only in the mind of a true liberal would "living within your means" and "spending wisely" be considered "incredibly irresponsible fiscal policy"

 

[fskimospy]

You must be confused about what judicial activism refers to. Reconsidering prior rulings is not the same as judicial activism.

I'm sure that you will find whatever definition of the term that you require in order to have rulings you dislike classified as judicial activism and rulings you like not.

 

[fskimospy]

I disagree. It can force you to do anything if and only if it has constitutional authority to do so. Legitimate interest or not, if it doesn't have the authority then the government can't force you to do something. Making everyone exercise for 30 minutes each day would certainly serve a "legitimate government interest", but it doesn't have the authority under the constitution to mandate such activity for everyone.

Yes. In this case, it is regulating the interstate health care market that every American participates in throughout their lives. Legitimate government interests by definition are those that fall within government's powers. Not to mention that not only has the US government enacted individual mandates in the past, it has enacted individual health insurance mandates in the past.

Only in the mind of a true liberal would "living within your means" and "spending wisely" be considered "incredibly irresponsible fiscal policy"

Only in the mind of a truly stupid person would that be taken from what I said.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm sure that you will find whatever definition of the term that you require in order to have rulings you dislike classified as judicial activism and rulings you like not.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/judicial+activism

judicial activism - an interpretation of the U.S. constitution holding that the spirit of the times and the needs of the nation can legitimately influence judicial decisions (particularly decisions of the Supreme Court)

There is no conceivable way that the mere act of reconsidering previous precedent and not following it is "judicial activism" under the definition. The ruling could very well be judicial activism, but not because the court doesn't follow precedent.

 

[Atreus21]

The argument was stupid because of the parallels it was trying to draw. Broccoli and health care are nothing alike. Of course Congress could force you to buy broccoli, the same way it could force you to buy health insurance or a gun. The government is entitled to force you to buy whatever it wants so long as it serves a legitimate government interest, yes. As mentioned above this is not a new thing, it started with George Washington.

Then I think it's very likely the court will strike down the mandate. From the tone of the arguments at the hearing, they seemed to be reticent to continue along the precedent that there is literally no limit to governmental power to coerce supposedly free people to buy whatever it wants. One would be hard pressed to find any examples of what the government cannot do by this argument, and that renders the constitution essentially irrelevant.

As also stated before, I simply find these objections baffling. You freely admit that the government may forcibly take your money and buy you health care with it no matter if it actually meets your needs, and in the name of freedom say you prefer that to them forcing you to buy your own health care that you can tailor to your preferences. Bizarre.

This argument forces you to either accept universal government control over almost everything, or refuse to pay taxes at all. As I said previously, if there is any limit at all on what the government can do, your argument does everything to remove it.

Taxes aren't being used to justify anything, I am simply showing you the irrefutable fact that Congress already has the power to compel you to participate in the exact same outcome and has had this power for all of US history. You can do whatever you want with that fact.

And they shouldn't have that power. If they do, they should be stripped of it.

I'm very disappointed to see that you are pleased with the Republicans' choice to pursue incredibly irresponsible fiscal policy, however. It is people such as yourself that are enabling these politicians to behave irresponsibly and not to approach fiscal matters in a mature and adult manner. I strongly encourage you to stop allowing such foolishness.

Approaching fiscal matters in a mature and adult matter, I would think, would entail first looking at what money we have, then looking at expenditures, and then resolving what expenditures we can do without before asking for, nay, taking even more money from our constituents, then using it to force them to buy what we say they will buy.

What you've done is to convince me that taxes, far from being used on our behalf, empower the government to bend us limitlessly to its will. If this is true, then the government should receive as little tax revenue as possible. The more taxes it gets, the more freedom we lose.

 

[PokerGuy]

Only in the mind of a truly stupid person would that be taken from what I said.

I know it stings, but those are your own words. Loud and clear.

 

[fskimospy]

Then I think it's very likely the court will strike down the mandate. From the tone of the arguments at the hearing, they seemed to be reticent to continue along the precedent that there is literally no limit to governmental power to coerce supposedly free people to buy whatever it wants. One would be hard pressed to find any examples of what the government cannot do by this argument, and that renders the constitution essentially irrelevant.

Of course it doesn't render the Constitution irrelevant. Congress could not enact such laws about things that do not substantially affect interstate commerce. Health care however is big time interstate commerce, and everyone participates in it. Even if you couldn't find a limiting factor to this it wouldn't render the Constitution irrelevant, that's a silly idea. The Constitution has many many uses, and additionally has many personal liberty guarantees that are entirely unaffected by this.

This argument forces you to either accept universal government control over almost everything, or refuse to pay taxes at all. As I said previously, if there is any limit at all on what the government can do, your argument does everything to remove it.

And they shouldn't have that power. If they do, they should be stripped of it.

That's not what the argument says at all. The argument says that in the case of health insurance the government has had this power since its inception. This is simply a fact. If you have a problem with it, then you have a problem with the Constitution as the framers wrote it. I thought you supported the Constitution?

Approaching fiscal matters in a mature and adult matter, I would think, would entail first looking at what money we have, then looking at expenditures, and then resolving what expenditures we can do without before asking for even more money from our constituents, then using it to force them to buy what we say they will buy.

What you've done is to convince me that taxes, far from being used on our behalf, empower the government to bend us limitlessly to its will. If this is true, then the government should receive as little tax revenue as possible. The more taxes it gets, the more freedom we lose.

I have convinced you of nothing, these opinions are identical to ones that you have already held for quite some time. What people often do when presented with contrary information that threatens the way they think about things is double down on what they already believe. That appears to be what you are doing here.

The Republican Party is the most fiscally irresponsible major party in the world today. If that appeals to you, fine.