Will the Supreme Court Kill Obamacare?

[theeedude]

Not exactly. Social Security privatization was based around a choice offered to citizens. They could keep going with the old system or they could voluntarily put money into a private account.

Some plans were. Others wanted to shift to a private system entirely.

 

[cybrsage]

Killing the individual mandate will also kill Social security privatization plans which require people to set money aside for their own retirements, because that money would be set aside in accounts managed by private financial institutions and invested in products offered by other private financial institutions.

Social Security is a tax everyone must pay. The "individual mandate" is a fine only some people must pay. In addition to that, none of the privatization schemes made it to law. A bill is not unconstitutional, since it is meaningless.

 

[theeedude]

Social Security is a tax everyone must pay. The "individual mandate" is a fine only some people must pay.

Exactly. If individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, that eliminates an alternative to social security that requires people to save for their own retirements at private financial institutions.

 

[cybrsage]

Exactly. If individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, that eliminates an alternative to social security that requires people to save for their own retirements at private financial institutions.

Exactly. If it gives them the option to use the existing system, 100% alternative private system, or part of each, then it would be ok. Forcing you to invest in a private company would be just as illegal as forcing you to buy healthcare.

 

[cybrsage]

As a note, each time I see the title I think it says "Will the Supreme Court Kill Obama" and I am like "wtf??"

😀

 

[theeedude]

Exactly. If it gives them the option to use the existing system, 100% alternative private system, or part of each, then it would be ok. Forcing you to invest in a private company would be just as illegal as forcing you to buy healthcare.

That's nowhere in the Constitution, but if SCOTUS decides this, I'll take it.

 

[cybrsage]

Correct, the Fed Gov only has those powers expressly given it by the Constitution. Forcing you to engage in commerce is not in there, and as such it is unconstitutional.

 

[theeedude]

Correct, the Fed Gov only has those powers expressly given it by the Constitution. Forcing you to engage in commerce is not in there, and as such it is unconstitutional.

Power to regulate interstate commerce is expressly given to the government in the Constitution.

 

[sactoking]

I do not view someone being transported by a competent adult and an incompetent child to be functionally the same.

But that's only because you assume the adult is competent and the child is not. There are plenty of incompetent licensed adults and children who would be competent enough to be licensed if given the chance. In other words, your personal bias clouds your view.

You argue that the mandate is proper because paying a tax and having insurance purchased for me is functionally the same as being forced to purchase insurance through an intermediary at threat of penalty. However, if someone views the government, the intermediary, or some other party as incompetent then they are not functionally the same by your logic. And the issue of competence is one of opinion, not fact, so the argument is not valid.

The McCarran-Ferguson arguments have gone nowhere, and they won't go anywhere. Congress explicitly expressed its will to regulate insurance in this way in this statute. An act of Congress can't be illegal due to another act of Congress. In areas of conflict the courts would have to decide which law applies, and it's unlikely that they would decide that a recently passed explicit regulation by Congress would be superceded by another federal statute passed a long time before.

So actually I think the legal argument really is that clear. 1.) interstate commerce found. 2.) universal participation found 3.) regulation enacted to govern such participation in commerce.

Errors:
1) Under existing law health insurance is not interstate commerce.
2) Universal participation in health care is true, universal participation in health insurance is not. Again, health insurance != health care. That is a fallacy that continues to be made.
3) The regulation enacted does not govern participation in commerce, it seeks to create commerce where none existed for the sole purpose of regulating it under threat of penalty.

If Congress wanted to regulate the interactions between a patient and provider that would be ok under existing law. If Congress wanted to regulate interactions between an insured and insurer that would not be ok under existing law.

The mandate itself doesn't do any of the first and only does some of the second but the big problem with the mandate is it seeks to force private citizens to engage in a private economic transaction for the sole purpose of then regulating that transaction.

If Congress had wanted to regulate health care properly they should have regulated health care and not health insurance.

 

[cybrsage]

Power to regulate interstate commerce is expressly given to the government in the Constitution.

When one does not engage in interstate commerce, or commerce at all, there is nothing to regulate.

 

[Attic]

snip...

If Congress had wanted to regulate health care properly they should have regulated health care and not health insurance.

Excellent post. The bolded is what I hope will gain focus and gain a reasonable solution.

 

[werepossum]

We have a healthcare cost curve that is vectoring up to infinity. At the rate it's moving, most employers will have dropped coverage for everyone but the highest paid employees by sometime in the next decade. If you really think that the solution is that whoever is paying for it has no say in managing said care, that the management is entirely in the hands of patient and doctor, neither of whom have an interest in keeping costs down, I don't know what to say. In the real world we can't have best quality all the time, with no constraints, and expect affordability. In the real world there are tradeoffs and we have to makes choices or eventually the choices are going to be made for us by forces beyond our control.

We are on a path to crash and burn with our healthcare system because very few will be able to afford it any more. If a government system like they have in the rest of the first world is not the answer, then we'd better come up with another one, and pretty fast.

- wolf

No one is saying that whomever is paying for it has no say in managing said care. (Well, except where it comes to "free" birth control.) What he is saying is that the people who best know where the true and necessary costs are, where the unnecessary and burdensome regulations (compared to the smart and necessary regulations) are, and where health care MUST go in the coming decades are being afforded no seat at the table at all. We shouldn't leave the entire crafting of our health care system in the hands of the health care providers, but what we do craft (with those health care providers as an integral and important part of the team) should be based around what those health care providers tell us about what the system needs to do and what it will need to do in the future.

Obamacare focused on taking over funding (and therefore control) of health care. Without understanding the implications of the coming changes in health care, which are inevitable due to our aging population, we're going to crash no matter how we fund health care simply because we're trying to solve a problem we want to fix instead of the problem we have to fix.

 

[Throckmorton]

Isn't interstate insurance buying specifically prohibited by healthcare reform? So how can it be interstate commerce?

 

[cybrsage]

Isn't interstate insurance buying specifically prohibited by healthcare reform? So how can it be interstate commerce?

Why do you love Haliburton and hate black people?

(I got this one for you libs out there, don't worry)

 

[werepossum]

SNIP

Errors:
1) Under existing law health insurance is not interstate commerce.
2) Universal participation in health care is true, universal participation in health insurance is not. Again, health insurance != health care. That is a fallacy that continues to be made.
3) The regulation enacted does not govern participation in commerce, it seeks to create commerce where none existed for the sole purpose of regulating it under threat of penalty.

If Congress wanted to regulate the interactions between a patient and provider that would be ok under existing law. If Congress wanted to regulate interactions between an insured and insurer that would not be ok under existing law.

The mandate itself doesn't do any of the first and only does some of the second but the big problem with the mandate is it seeks to force private citizens to engage in a private economic transaction for the sole purpose of then regulating that transaction.

If Congress had wanted to regulate health care properly they should have regulated health care and not health insurance.

You are arguing from a reasonable standpoint. However, in Wickard v. Filburn SCOTUS ruled that even activity that never enters commerce at all can be regulated under the interstate commerce clause. I think it's a horrible ruling, but it's still extant. Further, with the understanding that a level of health care necessary to sustaining life cannot be denied, the mandate is much closer to interstate commerce. If my neighbor grows his own wheat for his own consumption I lose a possible sale and all marketable wheat is worth less than it would otherwise be. If my neighbor refuses to buy insurance and incurs emergency health care costs above his ability to pay, I and my other neighbors must make up at least part of those costs. Further, the only real reason health insurance and health care are not currently interstate is because they are artificially constrained.

I dislike Obamacare on balance and I'd love to see the federal government's reach slapped back to something more in line with the Constitution. But since declaring the mandate to be unconstitutional would almost certainly vacate Wickard v. Filburn. Considering the amount of havoc that would cause as well as government's inherent urge to empower itself whenever possible, I don't see that happening.

 

[fskimospy]

Isn't interstate insurance buying specifically prohibited by healthcare reform? So how can it be interstate commerce?

Not only is it the health CARE market being regulated, with insurance as the mechanism, but regardless I'm pretty sure that your health insurance still pays out when you cross state lines.

 

[cybrsage]

You are arguing from a reasonable standpoint. However, in Wickard v. Filburn SCOTUS ruled that even activity that never enters commerce at all can be regulated under the interstate commerce clause. I think it's a horrible ruling, but it's still extant. Further, with the understanding that a level of health care necessary to sustaining life cannot be denied, the mandate is much closer to interstate commerce. If my neighbor grows his own wheat for his own consumption I lose a possible sale and all marketable wheat is worth less than it would otherwise be. If my neighbor refuses to buy insurance and incurs emergency health care costs above his ability to pay, I and my other neighbors must make up at least part of those costs. Further, the only real reason health insurance and health care are not currently interstate is because they are artificially constrained.

I dislike Obamacare on balance and I'd love to see the federal government's reach slapped back to something more in line with the Constitution. But since declaring the mandate to be unconstitutional would almost certainly vacate Wickard v. Filburn. Considering the amount of havoc that would cause as well as government's inherent urge to empower itself whenever possible, I don't see that happening.

All of the examples you showed had people engaging in commerce (or at least performing an act of something). In this case, the government wants to force you to engage in commerce and then regulate you for engaging in it.

Up next, force you to violate a law so they can punish you for violating it.

 

[fskimospy]

But that's only because you assume the adult is competent and the child is not. There are plenty of incompetent licensed adults and children who would be competent enough to be licensed if given the chance. In other words, your personal bias clouds your view.

No, this is called 'being reasonable'. Since a 13 year old has most likely never driven a car and so likely lacks training, experience, and possibly the physical height necessary to effectively drive a car. The vast majority of adults do not. Just because there are exceptions to this does not make it rational to assume that they are equal. That would be nonsensical.

You argue that the mandate is proper because paying a tax and having insurance purchased for me is functionally the same as being forced to purchase insurance through an intermediary at threat of penalty. However, if someone views the government, the intermediary, or some other party as incompetent then they are not functionally the same by your logic. And the issue of competence is one of opinion, not fact, so the argument is not valid.

Competence under the law is not a matter of opinion. Your argument is not valid.

Errors:
1) Under existing law health insurance is not interstate commerce.
2) Universal participation in health care is true, universal participation in health insurance is not. Again, health insurance != health care. That is a fallacy that continues to be made.
3) The regulation enacted does not govern participation in commerce, it seeks to create commerce where none existed for the sole purpose of regulating it under threat of penalty.

Errors:
1.) What Congress passes as a federal law is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not something meets the constitutional standard for interstate commerce. You really don't need to mention this anymore, it's not relevant.

2.) Health CARE is what is being regulated, and it is being done so through the insurance market. It's not a fallacy, it's the entire purpose of the law. I'm happy to see you agree that universal participation in the health market is true however, as that is central to disproving the 'non-participation' fallacy which your argument #3 is based on.

3.) It does not. See error #2.

If Congress wanted to regulate the interactions between a patient and provider that would be ok under existing law. If Congress wanted to regulate interactions between an insured and insurer that would not be ok under existing law.

The mandate itself doesn't do any of the first and only does some of the second but the big problem with the mandate is it seeks to force private citizens to engage in a private economic transaction for the sole purpose of then regulating that transaction.

If Congress had wanted to regulate health care properly they should have regulated health care and not health insurance.

New acts of Congress are not bound by existing law. Where two acts conflict, the older law does not take precedence. If anything, newer laws tend to do so.

The mandate regulates the participation of citizens in the health care market through forcing them to buy insurance. The health care market is 1.) interstate, 2.) universal, and 3.) being regulated by this act. This is basically the same thing I told you in my last post, hopefully it has become more clear for you after this one.

 

[theeedude]

When one does not engage in interstate commerce, or commerce at all, there is nothing to regulate.

That's not what SCOTUS, including some conservative justices currently looking at Obamacare, ruled in previous decisions.

 

[Lithium381]

Excellent post. The bolded is what I hope will gain focus and gain a reasonable solution.

Where is more money? Health insurance of health-care?