Forum:Obamacare

Obamacare.

This discussion was moved here from Saloon bar.

Do you think the mandate will get striked down at Supreme Court hearing? Moonshot926 (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• The Magic 8-Ball claims "outlook not so good". Personally I agree with it. 68.39.155.75 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If it does, i'm looking forward to cp's field day--il'Dictator Mikal 15:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

*Wobbles hand* Tricky one, it's really difficult to see how some of the less libertarian conservative judges will rule, given their voting precedence in other cases. Personally, I'm in legal geek heaven. Leveson Inquiry during the day, Supreme Court hearing during the early and mid evening. Gotta love the innertubes...-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything rests on Kennedy. From his legal point of view, I don't see him going for this, but it's such important legislation I think he *might* sit on his hands. Godot What do cats dream about? 18:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in the constitution that doesn't prohibit congress from mandating this. I think it will be held constitutional. Senator Harrison (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Mandates

It's really not that simple at all. Congress cannot mandate something for the country, when it is more apparent that State have the right to regulate it. Congress has a hell of a time mandating anything for that matter. That's why, while it's never going to change, there is a very valid reason to questioning the Federal govts right to individual income taxes. Godot What do cats dream about? 19:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just think, if SCOTUS rules for it, in the future the Treasury wouldn't have to bailout General Motors; Congress could just mandate every individual purchase x amount of shares of GM stock. Any Congressman facing the loss of jobs in his district, say toilet seat manufacturers for example, could submit a bill mandating all 165 million adult Americans to purchase a toilet seat. And it would only require 318 House votes, 51 Senators, and Presidential signature since SCOTUS has already ruled. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 20:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't half talk a load of old bollocks, Rob. Sophie^{because liberals} 20:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Except that's not at all comparable. Congress will state you must have *insurance* to cover your health, just like you must have worker's comp insurance, liablity insurance, and most people - driver's insurance. They will NOT mandate who you must buy from, or what the cost must be. Oh... details. I know they are hard for conservatives to grasp. Godot What do cats dream about? 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That simply is not true. If you don't wish to pay car insurance , don't drive. If you don't wish to pay work comp, don't employ people. One does have a choice. If you don't wish to pay health insurance, you're only choice to skip paying the fine is to quit breathing. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 20:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was summing up a recent lengthy discussion on NPR about the SCOTUS hearings and health care in general. And no, the government can't mandate anything it wants to. That argument reminds me of the argument where allowing gay people to marry will allow toasters to marry. Senator Harrison (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious if you're in earnest or if you're being disingenous, Rob. Do you really not see the difference between a service that entails a sixth of the economy and to which everyone is forced to subscribe by their very nature when they become sick (as we all eventually do), and the purchase of a car company stock or household product? Or to put it another way: if SCOTUS upholds the mandate as constitutional, do you honestly think that would make the hypotheticals you outline constitutional under SCOTUS' decision?--^talk 23:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the parts of Obamacare about family coverage until 26 and no barring coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. Moonshot926 (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: everyone likes these things. These are the popular things. They also will cost a lot of money, and just cramming people into a system running out of control is going to make things worse. To give us these popular things, the unpopular bits have to also be administered, to pay for them.--^talk 23:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In human nature, because of emotion, everything tends to the extreme (I can cite the military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz or the stock market technician Joseph Granville who, writing on their respective specialties, said almost exactly the same thing). In politics, it's called "the Law of Unintended Consequences." A most recent example is, virtually to the day Greece was re-negotiating it's default with German banks, the government of Greece began recognizing pedophilia, kleptomania, and sado-masochism as medical disabilities qualifying a person for government disability benefits. Now, when the original disability law was passed, was it ever intended to cover criminal activity? And here's the solution for the unemployed in Greece, today, begin stealing everything in sight and that guarantees a government check. Clearly, Western society and ideals have some serious, basic flaws the developing world would do good to try and avoid. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 20:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? What are you talking about? Your reply is only vaguely related to the topic of discussion. If you intended it to be responsive in some way, you have failed to connect your point with a relevant train of thought in this dialogue. I have noted that this is a pattern.--^talk 00:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm answering your question on hypotheticals, if SCOTUS were to uphold the mandate, regardless of merit (how popular it is, etc), there is nothing in Law then to stop a majority Congress from forcing Americans to engage in commercial activity they do not wish to engage in. And given human nature, there is always a tendency to extremes. You've heard how pork barrel measures get sneaked into an omnibus bill at midnite; these sort of co-erced transactions have the potential to become commonplace. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 01:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You're not really making any sense. You start off making sense and you end making sense, but somewhere in the middle you lose the link. It's like you're talking about how you got out the bread and cheese for a sandwich, and then FISHFISHFISHFISHFISH and so that's how you got a new dog.

Yes, powers can sometimes expand and there can be unintended consequences. But what about the other limits on Congressional power that have always been there and will continue to be there? Forcing someone to buy broccoli, to pick a popular example, would still be unconstitutional because no one is inevitably forced to participate in the broccoli market and no reasonable person could believe that such a purchase would be necessary and proper to regulation of the national economy.--^talk 08:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you know what? Here's a better question. Forget the above. Breyer raised this one himself: if there's a terrible plague killing 50% of America, can Congress force people to get the vaccine?--^talk 09:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that in the Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday transcripts; can you find the page? What I've read so far, looks Solicitor General Verrilli isn't doing so well, Breyer, Sotomeyer, and Kagan have had to bail him out or make his arguments for him (see Tuesday pp. 15-16, 22-23, for eaxample). nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 21:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I only listened to the arguments' audio. It was made by Breyer on the second day, though.--^talk 03:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Specific response on vaccinations: forcing payment for a mandatory vaccine would be a one time case, that is quite different from a requirement to establish a permanent commercial relationship. It's an unfair comparison. Further, has there ever been a mandatory vaccine? If the government is going to strap people down to a gurney and inject them, or force feed them, that treads real close to genuine Nazi stuff. Here in Albuquerque, for example, after some nutcase killed two policemen who came to his house to take him to the nut ward for being off his meds, the Mayor by Executive Order granted police and healthcare givers authority to force independent living mentally disabled people to take psychotropic drugs, of course because there is not state of Federal law requiring people to take prescription medications, and (as a general rule) cannot be forcefully administered. Needless to say, the Mayor's decree was struck down by a higher court. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 19:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it an unfair comparison - because we're talking about a repeated action, rather than a single one? Wasn't it you who just a moment ago was arguing about how incremental increases in government power tend to trend towards extremity? If it's constitutional for the government to regulate healthcare, through what a reasonable person could consider the necessary action of requiring all citizens to make a purchase of a certain class of product, then it's always constitutional. It's not constitutional only if the government's going to make them do the purchase once, or twice, or thrice, or whatever. And hey, what about if the virus requires yearly booster shots?

No, to my knowledge there's never been an instance of this. It's a hypothetical, to illustrate that you don't really seem to have any actual interpretation of the Constitution going on here, just a partisan certainty that Obamacare is wrong. You seem to have essentially admitted - via your craven "not fair!" - that you don't really oppose the constitutional basis for the law.

Here's another question, to illustrate. Justice Sotomayor introduced a hypothetical of her own, about the mandate. Let's say that Congress doesn't require a purchase of insurance under threat of a fine, like Obamacare does. Let's say that Congress just changes the semantics around. Would it be constitutional for Congress to tax everyone for healthcare, then allow everyone to write off their insurance premium and thereby waive the tax? I.e. if you don't think it's constitutional to force everyone to buy insurance, is it constitutional to tax everyone by the same amount as the fine and then reward those who do buy insurance?

It's a purely semantic changes (except for the fact that it's a little harder on the poor, of course!) but I'm interested to hear your perspective.--^talk 03:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sotomeyer's point get's to the second part of the case: the 1867 Law (Anti-Injunction Act) that bars Courts from hearing cases from citizens who feel they've received an unfair tax assessment from a government entity and always for an administrative legal process. The authors of Obamacare were careful not use the word "tax", but instead "penalty", but nevertheless authorized the IRS to collect the "penalty" under the AIA. The administrative process allows for an appeal for exemption through the Secretary of HHS, etc., rather than through federal court. Yes, the law was written with this semantic loophole. The write-off of premiums isn't a big issue, not that many filers itemize, and medical insurance deductions have been tightened up even further in recent decades. That's an issue more related to tax reform, which even conservatives seem willing to do away with given the new permanent economic realities of budget crisis.

Ultimately, my guess is these two provision may be struck down, and it's back to the drawing board to salvage what's left of the Law. One thing would then be certain: Obama and the Democrats failed to deliver on Universal coverage, costs escalate, a new push will be made to re-assemble the coalition that created this mess and install Single Payer as the only way to guarantee Universal coverage. But I could be wrong. nobs^{[[User talk:RobSmith|Debate topic: Should wp:AIG reorganize, get into the healthcare insurance business, and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?]]} 04:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So, are you going to answer my question. I wasn't asking "in what context did Sotomayor use this hypothetical," I was asking you if it would be constitutional. And if it would be constitutional, then why.

Again: if the mandate was reworked so that everyone was taxed, and then those who got healthcare got a rebate for it, then would it be constitutional?--^talk 04:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Court likely will rule the "penalty" is a tax, but the point becomes moot if the mandate is overturned. And the only way the mandate could be reworked would be through Single Payer. nobs^{Debate topic: Should AIG reorganize, get into the healthcare insurance business, and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 17:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You refuse to answer my question? Because you appear to have answered some different question that perhaps only you heard, something like, "What do you think SCOTUS will do?"

I asked if the mandate was reworked so that everyone was taxed, and then those who got healthcare got a rebate for it, then would it be constitutional? Obamacare is repealed tomorrow in toto and then passed again, with this single change. Constitutional?--^talk 21:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This question is ambiguous. The mandate is a requirement to purchase private insurance. I'm assuming you mean drop the requirement and tax everyone to support a general fund that all benefits are paid out of, is that correct?

Then, to receive heathcare benefits, and presumably a cash rebate, sounds like double dipping. Are you saying pay people to receive benefits? after they've been taxed to pay for the benefits? I know we're close here, with all due respect let's try just a little harder to get on the same wavelength. nobs^{Debate topic: Should AIG get into healthcare insurance and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with insured's premiums?} 01:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on constitutionality and involuntary contracts

No, that's not what I mean. That would be essentially single-payer. I thought rewording the question twice would be sufficient, but okay, a little slower:

Obamacare requires everyone to buy insurance. If they fail to buy insurance, they are penalized. Let's call this penalty $100 for the sake of simplicity. So, either you buy insurance or you pay $100. This is the "mandate."

I am suggesting that this part of Obamacare is dropped, without altering the rest of the law. Instead, everyone must pay $100 in a healthcare tax. Those people who buy insurance of a required minimum standard, however, are rebated that $100 - i.e. they do not have to pay the healthcare tax. Everyone else must still pay. Call this "mandate2."

Functionally, the results are identical (again, with the caveat that mandate2 is harder on the poor): you either buy insurance or you pay $100. Yet it seems to me that mandate2 bypasses what you seem to consider is unconstitutional: it's just like any one of a thousand other tax-and-incentive scheme.

Do you think mandate2 is constitutional?--^talk 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, got it. In short, mandate2 maybe workable, (whether it's constitutional or not, I don't know. I've disagreed, as I'm sure you have, with SCOTUS on several issues). What you are proposing is similar to many ideas floated about SS retirement benefits -- keep the mandatory payment program for workers, the payroll tax, as a social safety net. But allow individuals to buy their way out of the government program through private retirement plans, IRAs, 401(k), KEOGH & SEP programs. Those programs are in place. But the idea of allowing holders of private retirement programs to deduct their private retirement plans against the government mandated payroll tax has never really been formally proposed in Congress, being the Third Rail, and all.

So a deduction against a mandated tax could also be considered a form of rebate. nobs^{Debate: Should AIG sell healthcare insurance and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with insured's premiums?} 02:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't know if it's be constitutional? Think about it. I suspect the reason you "don't know" is that you can't think of a good reason for mandate2 to be unconstitutional, which calls into question why you think the mandate itself is unconstitutional.

Please note I did not ask if you thought that this hypothetical was "workable," because its utility is only to illustrate that there's only a semantic difference between mandate and mandate2, and that thus there's no real reasoning behind your conclusion that the mandate is unconstitutional.--^talk 04:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Who's playing semantic games now? I'm trying to find a bi-partisan solution that can get past the Supreme Court. Congress mandates all workers pay into a retirement fund (FICA); private retirement funds have been established with deductability against federal taxes (or rebates); if a provision were made allowing private retirement account holders to deduct their plans against FICA (or payroll) tax, there may be a bipartisan consensus in both Congress & the public that SCOTUS would not tamper with. Same goes with healthcare (although there remains many problems, as this mandate is required of all 312 million Americans, adults and children -- unlike the FICA tax which only applies to workers). Whether a property owner could deduct private education against local public school taxes should also be examined. But if you really want universal coverage, you should recognized it is not possible without a bipartisan consensus. And a bi-partisan consensus is what it takes to amend the constitution, if necessary. A bipartisan consensus can make the Constitution say whatever it wants. Supreme Court Justices know this. And the big weakness of Obamacare was, it's a prime example of a single party dictate, which simply is not how the American system works. nobs^{Debate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 20:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not playing a semantic game, I'm using a purely semantic shift in policy to illustrate that your belief that the mandate is unconstitutional, as expressed here, is a partisan belief rather than a genuine analysis based in the law. And either because you can't help yourself or because you want to avoid the question, you keep trying to shift the subject to some sort of brainstorming about how you would rewrite the bill personally.

You "don't know" about whether or not mandate2 would be illegal. That satisfies me - if you won't bother to think about it and decide, then you're not actually interested in the constitutionality of the matter and all your comments about unlimited government power are undiluted tribalism: "go team go!"--^talk 21:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, that's meaningless. The 219 House Democrats thought Obamacare was Constitutional when they voted for it, despite differing expert opinion they presumably heard. We still don't know if it is or isn't. I personally don't believe government can or should force people into commercial relationships they do not want. One reason is, a basic element of wp:contract law is mutual assent, and consideration. Want of consideration, or lack of consideration, coercion, and blackmail are all justifiable reasons to void a contract. How can a contract entered into coersively be valid? I deal in the business world daily, and I just don't see how the strong arm of government can force me into a valid contract. That's my belief, but I could be wrong, as 219 Congressman, how many Senators, the President, and millions of Americans likewise may be wrong. I don't make the laws, neither do I determine if they have a legal basis. But my understanding is government exists to protect my rights, not take them away and force me into contracts and private commercial obligations I do not wish to be involved in. nobs^{Debate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 22:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: I'm not asking if you think the mandate was a good idea. I'm not asking if you disagree with an extralegal principle. I'm not asking if you "make the laws." I am asking a very simple yet potent question that goes to the heart of the matter: if you think the mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional, then do you also think that the proposed mandate2 would also be unconstitutional?

To sum:

We started off when I questioned whether you were serious about thinking that SCOTUS approval of the mandate would allow unlimited congressional power. You said you were, and have implied you think that the mandate is unconstitutional because of that. To illustrate the actual vapidity behind your opinion, I asked you a question about those constitutional principles under question.

You have said you "don't know." I have stated that it seems likely that you "don't know" because you have not bothered to think about the actual constitutional question at all, but instead oppose it on a partisan basis.

It's fine to oppose Obamacare because you hate Obama and want his administration to lose, and want the Republicans to win. It's also fine to oppose it because you think it's unworkable and you hate some of the principles involved, although I suspect you haven't really thought that through either.

But you should be clear about that, and not pretend you give a shit about the Constitution of the United States.--^talk 00:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Good analysis, so I'll restate: I oppose mandate1 on Constitutional grounds because, in my understanding, contract law must by voluntary. Unless insurance policies can be written so they are not contract law, in my humble, limited understanding of business law, I just don't see how they can be valid. Secondly, I opposed Obama & Obamacare becaused of their ideology that tramples on my rights, i.e. violates my right of free association to make, or not make contracts with whomever I so desire. And they don't seem to really care if my constitutional, God-given, civil, and human rights are violated. If that's partisan, so be it.

Can the law be tweaked in such a manner as to not violate people's constitutional rights, yet deliver universal coverage, other than some sort of socialist/communist government run system? Perhaps. nobs^{Debate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK then. Do you think mandate2 is also unconstitutional? Why/why not? Cow...Hammer^time! 20:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Mandate2 possibly, as part of a bipartisan compromise, could be worked to help bring about some form of universal coverage. This has been addressed above. nobs^{Debate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 20:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Contract law is not mentioned in the Constitution of the United States, nor do you cite any passage where it is implied. You do not actually mentioned the Constitution of the United States at all in your discussion of the constitutionality of mandate1, which seems really goddamn strange.

Now, I think it is constitutional because of the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and the Necessary and Proper Clause, which allows any means a reasonable person might think are necessary to accomplish any of Congress' various delegates powers (including regulating commerce). Congress can clearly regulate commercial "inactivity" (i.e. those who affect commerce by not participating it), thanks to SCOTUS precedent which establishes that Congress is allowed to prohibit people from growing marijuana in their house even if they don't sell it.

Would you care to give your justification of why you think the mandate is unconstitutional, or perhaps even answer my question about mandate2's constitutionality (you speak only practically in response to CowHammer), and maybe mention the Constitution in the process?--^talk 21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Contract law is certainly regulated by the interstate commerce clause. There is not a state in the union, AFAIK, that allows for "involuntary contracts". If anything, in recent decades there has been a movement toward Disclosure Laws at the federal and state level, and in the courts. Disclosure, so a person can make a fully informed, voluntary decision to enter into a contract. nobs^{Debate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 19:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes, contract law is regulated by the Commerce Clause. I'm glad you agree that the Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws about contract law, including healthcare. But weirdly, despite your apparent belief that the mandate is unconstitutional, you don't actually say why. You talk about involuntary contracts and the laws of the states and disclosure, none of which appear in the Constitution. Seriously, I'm starting to think you're putting me on... do you really think that just because you dislike something or it's a bad idea, it's therefore unconstitutional? Give it another try, and try to do it in a way that actually makes a constitutional argument: i.e. "it's unconstitutional because Congress is prohibited from doing such-and-such by this part of the Constitution" or "it's unconstitutional because Congress isn't granted power to do such-and-such anywhere in the Constitution." When I said "mention the Constitution," after all, I didn't expect you to literally just mention it.--^talk 02:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

An involuntary contract is defined as theft. Case closed. I'll add, if Obamacare were found Constitutional, it would have the net effect of either invalidating the corpus of contract law in 50 states, or some new hybrid form of animal will have been invented to govern insurance policies, because they no longer would be governed by contract law (meaning, for example, to pursue a civil claim against an insurer in court you would be dealing with some other form of animal outside of established contract law). I for one, am all for mandating all adult Americans to purchase a pack of cigarettes a day. It doesn't matter if they smoke or not. We'll call it consumer stimulus, a jobs program, and deficit reduction. Should be easy tp pass. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 20:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Case closed? You again have not mentioned the Constitution! Where in the Constitution does it declare that Congress shall not pass any laws enforcing an involuntary contract? This is a weird argument to make, one not made by anyone else - what about all the other "involuntary contracts" required by Congress in the past? I have to get car insurance if I want to drive a car, for example! It is widely acknowledged that Congress can require citizens to entire or not enter into contractual agreements of various sorts - unconscionable contracts are not valid, for example, and anyone wishing to fly a plane (i.e. consume a certain service and enter into a certain activity) must get a license and pilot's insurance. Congress has, with the mandate, has just said that everyone who consumes healthcare - i.e. all Americans - must get a different sort of insurance.

I guess now you'll just start declaring broadly that it's against your right to property or something. But I guess I've shown fairly conclusively that you have no principled constitutional opposition, just reactive tribalism. You cannot cite any actual constitutional law opposing the mandate, and when you try, you would also invalidate on the same principles a thousand other accepted things. And of course you refuse to answer a hypothetical about mandate2 that would further illustrate your partisan reactionary nature.

Incidentally, yes, you could mandate all Americans purchase cigarettes every day. It would be stupid, and would never pass, but it would be constitutional. That's because (and pay attention now) not every bad idea is prohibited by the Constitution.--^talk 06:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• Here is the brief filed with the Court on how the PPACA violates the Constitution and would "gut the foundation upon which the entirety of contract law rests" (see p. 11, for example). Here's a 2 minute video introduction.
• The car insurance argument was made by Sen. Baucus or Konrad in Committee; it's pretty lame and won't make it to the Court. Hell, it won't stand up on Chris Matthews Hardball.
• All the examples you site still are voluntary: if you don't wish to exercise your driving or flying privileges, you have the right not to enter into a contract for insurance.
• Since Medicare is in crisis, why did Obama raise the cigarette tax his first ten days in office? Jesus, seniors live long enough already. If a person were allowed to exercise their wp:right to die, maybe they'd croak before age 62, saving the deficit $24 trillion. Healthcare, like Energy policy, seems to work at cross-purposes at times. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 21:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

...so no Constitution, then? You're going to make an argument that something is unconstitutional without ever citing the actual document? Or wait, are you now just linking to things to make your argument for you? There's like eighty amicus briefs, so we're not going down that road: why don't you tell me exactly what part of the Constitution is being violated.

You don't have to drive or fly, but you have to receive healthcare at some point in your life. The only question is whether or not you'll have insurance when you do, or if the taxpayers are going to have to pay for it. But this is beside the point, because SCOTUS precedent has established that Congress can regulate commercial inactivity thanks to one farmer who wanted to ignore a wheat quota in the 50s. You can say that you don't think it's a good idea, or that it's immoral for Congress to do so, or that it somehow invalidates all contract law, etc. But those things do not implicitly mean it's not a constitutional thing to do, which is what we're discussing. Again: just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

I guess I'll just give you another try: care to say why you think the mandate is unconstitutional? Perhaps even (gasp upon gasp) say why mandate2 is unconstitutional? Because you're starting to get embarrassing.--^talk 20:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, which includes the body of contract law in 50 states; contract law, as the amicus cites, is based upon mutual assent (the amicus cites a c.1625 precedent in British Law); to uphold PPACA would invalidate elements of contract law in 50 states; help me out with the process now, who is the burden of proof on at this point, proponents who circumvented the legislative process and used budget reconciliation to fulfill their narrow agenda? or proponents of the status quo who have no questionable legislation to defend? As someone said on FOX today, it's gonna look pretty bad when a Professor of Constitutional Law gets smacked down cause his schemes are declared unconstitutional. And I've stated mandate2 may be workable with a bipartisan consensus. But the issue in mandate2 isn't the narrow issue of sharing the wealth by funding pre-existing conditions. It is an overall view of a limited role of government, encouragement of private sector retirement planning, health insurance, and education. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 17:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Congress has the ability to regulate interstate commerce, and federal legislation supersedes state legislation within that purview and could "invalidate contract law" if they so chose. You are arguing in favor of Obamacare, not against it! I don't know what "burden of proof" is left: you yourself just specified the specific clause of the Constitution that allows Congress the power to pass the mandate! Do you honestly think you're making a constitutional argument against it? Very sad for you.

I note that you still won't say why mandate2 would be unconstitutional. I didn't ask about whether it was "workable." Is it constitutional, and if not, why?--^talk 08:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC

Ok, let's try again. The PPACA changes the Constitution by grossly expanding Congressional power to mandate that individuals engage in interstate commerce against their will, with no limitations. It was passed under questionable circumstance with a simple, pure partisan majority,against bi[artisan opposition. That simply is not how Constitutional change in the US takes place. That is why we have a Supreme Court. As to mandate2, it may not be unconstitutional (after its reworked a bit). And that provides a better path to several Constitutional reforms many constituent bases have wished for for decades. A bit of log rolling could build a bipartisan coalition consensus to make it be Constitutional, and effective. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 12:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Obamacare "changes the Constitution"?! How the hell can you think that?! It's a statute, not an amendment. What part was changed? Are you just being rhetorical?

I don't know what the terms of its passage have to do with it, but I don't see what was "questionable." Things like the Cornhusker Kickback were eliminated from the bill and it passed with a supermajority of support in the Senate and a majority of support in the House, all of which representatives were democratically elected and signed by a President who'd been elected with a strong majority, all of whom had been promising to do this very thing if they had the chance. Once it's accepted that the GOP had decided they would refuse to pass anything, it's hard to imagine how much more solid the bill's backing could have been.

So even though now you're going off into crazytown on the mandate, with the allegation that Obamacare somehow changed the Constitution, at least you've admitted that mandate2 is constitutional. So here's my question: why is mandate2 constitutional, but the mandate is not? It is, as mentioned, a purely semantic change. One plan makes everyone get insurance and taxes those who don't, and the other taxes everyone and refunds those who get insurance. How exactly is one of these constitutional while the other is not?

But really, now my main interest is on your claim that Obamacare changed the Constitution. This is an, ahem, unique claim for you to have made. I have never heard this. Is this just your new refuge in your attempts to hide from my relentless insistence that you specify why the law is unconstitutional in your view? Do you honestly believe this?--^talk 13:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the Court immune to politics? The seminal work here appears to be Robert A. Dahl's, Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker (1957). "The political views on the Court are never for long out of line with the views dominant among the lawmaking majorities of the United States." The Obamacare mandate fails even in public opinion. A 2010 L.A. Times article reports, "In court of public opinion, U.S. justices mostly get it right." Krauthammer wrote, "Obamacare squeaked by through a parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation that was never intended for anything so sweeping." And note Dahl says "lawmaking majorities of the United States", not "United States Congress". This means the lawmaking majorities of 50 states, 26 of whom are parties to the suit.

To uphold Obamacare would fundamentally change the Constitution, or "legislate from the bench," without a bipartisan consensus among "the lawmaking majorities of the United States", or the United States Congress, or even public opinion. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

An irrelevant reply.

No, the court is not immune to politics. But that has no bearing on any constitutional argument. So when I ask you about something's constitutionality, it makes no sense to reply with politics.

Nor do you actually mention what part of the Constitution upholding Obamacare would change. That's an insane claim, and I'm interested to hear about it. What will be changed? What is unconstitutional? Why is it unconstitutional?

You can just admit that you don't know why you think it's unconstitutional, if you'd like.--^talk 20:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's go through this slowly: The default position would be a world without the mandate, with the Constitution intact. If the Supreme Court were to uphold this legislation, that would amount to "legislating from the bench" with the net effect of (a) permanently expanding and unfettering Congress to coerce Americans into involuntary contracts with private sector parties, and (b) forcing unprecedented modifications to the body of contract law in 57 states, and overturning nearly 4 centuries of our understanding of what a contract is. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I will try to explain as clearly as possible. You say Congress' passage of Obamacare causes (a) and (b). Without ceding or arguing (a) and (b), they are irrelevant: they are something you don't like, but that has nothing to do with their constitutionality. Do you understand?
(a) and (b) are things that I think Congress has the power to do, under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. You might think they're bad things to do, but you can't say that (a) and (b) are unconstitutional just because (a) and (b) are bad. For something to be unconstitutional, Congress must be making a law that is beyond its constitutional power to make.
I need to correct you, also, when you say that SCOTUS would be "legislating from the bench." You should not repeat that elsewhere, because you do not understand its meaning. Legislating from the bench is a rhetorical label, universally regarded as occurring when a court strikes down a law because in the court's opinion it isn't a good law. It's an insult, because courts are meant to interpret the law, not decide them on their merits. It is crazy to say that SCOTUS upholding Congress' law means that SCOTUS is "legislating from the bench." Congress already did the legislating. Just fair warning: you probably don't want to repeat this particular line of argument in the hearing of others.
Side note: there are 50 states.--^talk 21:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Why mandate2 may be workable. SCOTUS has ruled workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits. With the upcoming debate at the end of this year to extend the Obama payroll tax cut, it could be a time "end the Social Security myth", which President Obama, along with Congressman Ryan, may have begun incrementally. The saying goes, "there is no such thing as a 'temporary tax cut'". Perhaps a bipartisan solution could make the payroll tax cut permanent by allowing private insurance deductability against a mandated tax, and expanding the concept to health insurance.

As to the 57 states, tell it to that idiot Dan Quayle Sarah Palin Barack Obama. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Legislating from the bench. In the case of wp:Flemming v. Nestor, by upholding the Social Security Act of 1936, the Court legislated from the bench that workers who pay into Social Security do not retain property rights and have no right to Social Security benefits. This is not spelled out in the original legislation, but rather in the Court's majority opinion. It is an example of "legislating from the bench" in it's final ruling when it upheld an Act of Congress. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so mandate2 is constitutional, then? You keep cowering behind that gutless phrase, "maybe workable," but I'm just going to assume that despite that craven phrasing you are actually making a positive assertion somewhere in there.

Now, if mandate2 is constitutional, as you cede in a cowardly sort of way, then why isn't the mandate constitutional? The difference between the two is almost purely semantic - in mandate2, everyone is fined and those who get insurance are recompensed, while in the mandate those who don't get insurance are fined. The end result is literally identical, the mechanism is identical, the scope is identical, etc. How is it that mandate2 is within the scope of Congress, yet the mandate is not? Please, explain your constitutional reasoning to me. Try to avoid the temptation to hide behind a discussion of what is politically possible, ideologically desirable, or other things. We are talking about what is constitutional.

I notice you slunk away from that (a) and (b) deal of our last exchange! Haha!

And I am not interested in a derail about the phrase "legislate from the bench." Call it what you will.--^talk 04:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

But this is what happens in life. The President proposes and signs legislation like the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. He says things like, "We must not allow this type of insurance to become a dole through the mingling of insurance and relief. It is not charity. It must be financed by contributions, not taxes. Some poor naive fools are dumb enough to listen and believe that shit. Then the Supreme Court legislates from the bench upholding the law by writing "that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, 'The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.'" Was FDR a bald face, deceptive liar? Was the Supreme Court, who earlier struck down much of the New Deal, secretly a bunch of commie operatives? Who knows? Did anyone recognize in the Court's writing in 1937 that there is no Social Security Trust Fund ("not earmarked in any way"), paving the way for raiding the Social Security Trust Fund 30 years later? Why do Democrats still like to pretend the Social Security Trust Fund exists, when the Supreme Court ruled one year after the Act was passed, that it never has? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 05:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

none of us are experts in US constitutional law. Isn't this debate a waste of time? Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No. We are "progressively", if you'll excuse the term, getting to the heart of the matter from both perspectives in laymen's terms. Time will tell if we are articulating the arguments fairly. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Break

Nothing, then? You're giving up all pretense of actual constitutional discussion, and launching into a barrage of fast-paced derails, hoping I'll reply to one of them and you can change the subject?

Just admit that you don't really know why you think the mandate is unconstitutional. It's not so bad - just a little humiliating. It's not going to change anyone's opinion of you, and surely you must have already accepted it yourself at this point. After all, I've asked you the same direct questions a dozen times, rephrased and explained four or five times, and even you must not be able to pretend that you have an answer.

You think the mandate is unconstitutional because you were told to think that. Just admit it.--^talk 06:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The case has been laid out in pretty good detail. What do you want to hear, Limbaugh told me it's unconstitutional? I think I've been fairly consistent in opposing Obama & Obamunism (#5 on Google) for sometime because of it's Marxist-Leninist, authoritarian, and anti-democratic principles. And that was before the PPACA was passed. Time will tell. If the conservative majority on the Court declares it Constitutional, so be it. I will accept it. I'm not going to become a community organizer and attempt to overthrow our fundamental human rights. All I can do is hope me and the other advocates of freedom are right, and the proponents of indentured servitude, slavery, and oppression are wrong. And thank God I can openly express those sentiments. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! Thank you! You have been "consistent in opposing Obama & Obamunism"! And that's why you have declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional: not because it violates any principle of the Constitution, but because you don't like it and you oppose Obama.

Do you not understand how fucked up that is? The Supreme Court is supposed to be the highest court in the land, and impartially deciding whether or not the statute is in illegal contradiction of the highest law of the country, the Constitution. Yet you are cheering for them to decide against it, regardless of whether or not the decision is right, because you're anti-Obama.

No, I don't think you'll run riot if SCOTUS decides in favor of the law, or anything like that. And I understand perfectly well you don't like it, based on principle. But don't pretend that your wish that SCOTUS would overturn Obamacare is founded on actual constitutional law. It's sickening.--^talk 21:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Necessary and proper clause

The key here is the "necessary and proper" clause. The purpose of the ACA is to regulate health insurance companies, which are a part of interstate commerce. The mandate is necessary in order to do this. The necessary and proper clause allows the government to do an individual mandate. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob has consistently refused to actually discuss anything about the actual Constitution.--^talk 22:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't you say so. Unless all American's are mandated to directly support some private commercial interest, it may become unprofitable. The analogy here is the Pope mandating Roman Catholics to eat fish on some quasi-religious basis, when it was designed to support fish prices and fishermen's jobs after they received competition from meat producers. Just another example of cronie capitalism. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 01:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a question, where does the "price of fish" meme here originate? Mr. Anon (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your question. You mean you do not see an analogy of a mandate for all living beings to engage in commercial activity to support a particular industry and a mandate for all living beings to engage in commercial activity to support a particular industry? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Everyone seems to say to you, "What does that have to do with the price of fish?". Mr. Anon (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh ohhh....I got it....you made a funny (pardon me i'm a little slow). See the jstor reference, The Demand function of Fish, that should put the matter to rest. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It arises from Rob's (here demonstrated) tendency to answer direct challenging questions with irrelevant asides intended to obfuscate the issue. It's a now-uncommon but previously accepted colloquialism meaning, "And what does that have to do with the issue at hand?"--^talk 04:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So the Obama administration's position is: it is necessary and proper to nullify four century's of contract law in order for the payment mechanism of pre-existing conditions to work. Does this summarize the proposition? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 11:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really - I don't agree that this does invalidate contract law.

Mr Anon, you can see the principle at work, here. Rob is backed into a corner. He can't admit that he doesn't really have any constitutional arguments against Obamacare, so he instead posits a tangential topic - whether or not the law is good - and frames it as relevant to the discussion of constitutionality. He does it frequently, and it's not an accident.--^talk 12:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously now, let's get on the same page. Upto now, you've argued under the Commerce Clause. Please read page 16, beginning at line 22, "GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes. The -- the rationale purely under the Commerce Clause that we're advocating here would not justify forced purchases of commodities..." down to page 19, line 18, JUSTICE GINSBURG: "...it's not your free choice just to do something for yourself...." and give me impressions. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 12:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

My impression is this: if you wish to make an argument against the constitutionality of the law, and stop your humiliation, you're going to have to do it yourself. I'm not going to read sections of the transcript and summarize them for you, any more than I will read amicus briefs, like you tried before. If you want me to address an argument that asserts the mandate is unconstitutional, please excerpt it, paraphrase it, or (and this is least likely) think of it yourself. I'm not going to argue for you.

"Up do now" I have not really argued much about the Constitution or its clauses, because you haven't disagreed substantively. The few times you have touched on the actual constitutionality, it has always been in favor of my view, inadvertently.

What is your argument? Are you claiming that the Commerce Clause does not extend to regulating healthcare? Are you claiming Congress cannot regulate inactivity under the clause?

And hey, if you don't want to address the constitutionality of it, as you appear not to, then we can always return to where we were above. I finally got you to admit that mandate2 is constitutional, and now I was about to start hammering away to see if we could get you to admit that mandate2 and the mandate are identical..--^talk 12:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just re-read extended extracts of the Tuesday arguments. Honestly, General Verrelli's arguments read like a George Bush press conference. He premises the whole thing on both Commerce & Necessary and proper clauses, but leans heavily on the commerce clause. Kennedy rips him apart showing that just because something is necessary, it's not essential, and just cause it's necessary doesn't make it proper. He uses the doctrine of enumerated powers & the Tenth Amendment, citing how state powers are not enumerated (or limited) whereas the Federal government is. Back to the Commerce clause. Scalia, Alito or Roberts point out that if Congress is granted unlimited power to compel commerce, next year they could mandate everyone join a fitness club cause lack of exercise is a chief cause of poor health.

IMO, Obama's signature achievement is a lost cause. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

JUSTICE ALITO: Before you move on, could you express your limiting principle as succinctly as you possibly can? Congress can force people to purchase a product where the failure to purchase the product has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, if what? If this is part of a larger regulatory scheme? GENERAL VERRILLI: We've got -
JUSTICE ALITO: Is that it?
GENERAL VERRILLI: We've got -
JUSTICE ALITO: Is there anything more?
GENERAL VERRILLI: We got two and they are -- they are different. Let me state them. First, with respect to the comprehensive scheme. When Congress is regulating -- is enacting a comprehensive scheme that it has the authority to enact that the Necessary and Proper Clause gives it the authority to include regulation, including a regulation of this kind, if it is necessary to counteract risks attributable to the scheme itself that people engage in economic activity that would undercut the scheme. It's like -- it's very much like Wickard in that respect. Very much like Raich in that respect.
With respect to the -- with respect to the -- considering the Commerce Clause alone and not embedded in the comprehensive scheme, our position is that Congress can regulate the method of payment by imposing an insurance requirement in advance of the time in which the -- the service is consumed when the class to which that requirement applies either is or virtually most certain to be in that market when the timing of one's entry into that market and what you will need when you enter that market is uncertain and when -- when you will get the care in that market, whether you can afford to pay for it or not and shift costs to other market participants.
So those -- those are our views as to -those are the principles we are advocating for and it's, in fact, the conjunction of the two of them here that makes this, we think, a strong case under the Commerce Clause.

So, that appears to be administration's case, succinctly. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

So what is your argument against the mandate's constitutionality, then? Are you arguing that it could not be perceived by a reasonable person to be a necessary part of Obamacare? That is easily refuted by the fact that removing the mandate would cause costs to spiral out of control drastically unless another solution was in place: clearly, the mandate is a necessary part of the law in order to make it work, and accordingly it can be considered a necessary action to undertake regulation of a sector of interstate commerce.

But maybe that's not what you're arguing. In which case: please tell me why you think the mandate is unconstitutional.--^talk 22:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It is what the Justices call a limiting principal under the doctrine of enumerated powers. Verrilli can't seem to come up with one. The Tenth Amendment says the powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved, not just to the States, but to the States and the people. Kennedy points out, "In the law of torts...you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him, absent some relation between you...here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way. IOW, the People loose fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution under the Tenth Amendment, and the enumerated powers of the Federal government become unlimited. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 22:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now that you've been forced into a dialog, we can get somewhere. Can we agree on these things?

1. Congress has the power to regulate the healthcare industry, because it is a sixth of the total economy. Even individual and private decisions come within the purview of Congress, because as precedent has established, inactivity in an area of commerce still affects the overall market (i.e. you can't grow marijuana even if you intend not to sell it).
2. Congress can, in the process of regulating the healthcare industry as part of interstate commerce, take any such actions as a reasonable person might deem necessary and proper to enact its purposes. Congress can require that all insurance agencies may only enter into contracts that offer coverage to children on their parents' plan, for example, because a reasonable person could consider that to be a necessary and proper action taken to ensure that more children are covered by insurance.
3. Congress has the power to levy taxes for virtually any purpose it sees fit. If it wanted to tax everyone in the country for the sake of supporting broccoli sales, or tax only those with red houses, or whatever. Obviously, of course, Congress could not use this power to violate other sections of the Constitution: Congress could not tax Catholics 50% of their income because they're Catholic.

Do you agree with these three established ideas? I should mention, incidentally, that they are not under serious dispute anywhere. I have tried to state them as fairly as I can, to provide a basis for continuing this discussion.--^talk 23:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Verrilli states (Tuesday, p.24, lines 11-20) that "my friends on the other side... agreed that Congress has Article I authority to impose an insurance requirement or other penalty at the point of sale, and they have agreed that Congress has the authority to do that to achieve the same objectives that the minimum coverage provision in the Affordable Care Act is designed to achieve."
  We'll accept that at face value.
• The dispute seems to be over compelling commerce where none previously exists, and limits on the commerce clause. Kennedy asks, "Can you identify for us some limits on the Commerce Clause?" Verrilli appears of two minds, he responds, "Yes. The -- the rationale purely under the Commerce Clause that we're advocating here would not justify forced purchases of commodities for the purpose of stimulating demand...it would not justify purchases of insurance for the purposes -- in situations in which insurance doesn't serve as the method of payment for service." Later he says, "That's the problem...when people have that guarantee of -- that they can get insurance, they're going to make that calculation that they won't get it until they're sick and they need it. And so, the pool of people in the insurance market gets smaller and smaller. The rates you have to charge to cover them get higher and higher. It helps fewer and fewer -- insurance covers fewer and fewer people until the system ends." So I'm confused as to what and why a mandate is required.
• The Justices quite aptly point out the reasoning that because everyone is in the healthcare market, Congress choose to regulate the insurance market. What's next? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that a response? Do you disagree with the three things I laid out? How about answering direct fucking questions?--^talk 20:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You know what? Never mind. You have successfully worn me down with your inability to conduct an actual discussion and lurching attempts to change the subject.

I think I have more than adequately proven that your belief about the constitutionality of Obamacare is rooted in simple partisanship and dislike of the law, rather than the actual Constitution, a document with which you do not seem familiar.

If you decide you want to actually learn, you can read this short essay or this long one.--^talk 23:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's one for you, it's the Tenth Amendment (see the small section under Medicaid Expansion). And Justice Kennedy seems to be the deciding vote. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 00:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Dropped

My health insurance dropped me when I turned 19 and moved out. Then the healthcare reform law passed, and now I have insurance again. I also need my gall-bladder out. Obama has my vote. Senator Harrison (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I like all of it, it's a good start to mandate insurance, bring down the cost, and let americans stop freaking out about "socialized medicine". That said, the things about pre existing kids, and covering all kids while they are in school, and covering "well care" adn birth control all have me saying "excellent". Godot What do cats dream about? 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Crazification factor test: How many people despise the bill thanks to the "socialized medicine" fear-mongering? Osaka Sun (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Handicapping the vote

This actually came up in my conversation at lunch today. I was talking to a couple of lawyers who also work in my building (both of them are fairly conservative, btw) and I as kind of surprised when the only disagreement we had was by how much SCOTUS would approve them mandate by- I said 5-4, and they said 6-3 and 7-2, which kind of shocked me, even though in retrospect, it should't have. The main point made, which I don't see previously commented here, is that the liberal judges have a tendency to try and use the Court to legislate, whereas the conservative judges by and large judge based on constitutionality rather than try and use the court as a vehicle to pass bills. Therefore, it's pretty much a given that there's four votes for it, and there's plenty of judicial precedent for regulation of interstate commerce by Congress, so at the very least Kennedy would jump on the "constitutional" bandwagon, with maybe Scalia and Roberts joining them. I was surprised, to say the least. --The Emperor 03:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I always roll in laughter at anyone saying the "legislate from the bench". they don't, they never have. they are not legislating, as teh laws are already written. they are looking at the laws in the context of the Constitution. Right now, you have 3 judges who blatantly admit they do not think Precedent applies to them. Thomas has gone so far as to actually claim that he can make any decision he wants based on his "gut" if the law is with him or not. Scalia says women do not have Due Process or Equal Protection. These are people who less than one year ago decided that CORPORATIONS are persons. where exactly is that in the Constitution? --Godot What do cats dream about? 03:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, they actually said those things? Have a link? Godspeed (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, they did. We have two of the most incompetent judges one the bench right now. Scalia's comment about women is here. His basic argument is that the 14th amendment did not SAY women, therefore it does not apply TO women. Of course, he voted FOR corporations being persons in the 5-4 battle last year. the's clearly in the Constitution. really. Scalia is also the one who just went balistic about "icky gays" in Romer v Evans "amendment 2. Thomas should never have been given teh bench, ever. he has no track record as a judge (not that it's a legal requirement to BE a judge, by the way). I'm not sure how to google his comments about "I can find how I want, by my gut", since those words are so common, but he said it. he also overturns precedence more than any other judge in history. (That one is in his wikipedial bio).--Godot What do cats dream about? 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Now I get your meaning. Interesting how the conservatives were sceptical of incorporation until the McDonald gun control case but are now big fans. Godspeed (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Remember, we're talking about a guy who thinks Jack Bauer constitutes a legal argument here. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't even get how you can sit on the bench and cite to a TV show. I mean, i've seen TV shows where torture caused one guy to kill another guy. so that proves it's GOOD for us. Didn't he get the memo that the RESULTS are made up, in fiction? jsut saying.Godot What do cats dream about? 21:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say corporations are persons? perhaps in the word corpus = body. And I think SCOTUS only upheld existing Corporation Law which was established in the 50 states & the British Empire and Commonwealth at least over 150 years ago. But that doesn't stop idiots from trying to challenge democratically establish laws that are centuries old. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 01:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You really are either illeducated or tied into a right wing block that you can't see out of, aren't you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission --Godot What do cats dream about? 15:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Who can't read? It was "landmark" my ass. Citizens United did away with the unconstitutional provisions of McCain-Feingold, re-iterated wp:Buckley v. Valeo and existing corporation law which has been around forever, even before unconstitutional Progressive "reforms". nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 03:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What a load of absolute self-serving garbage. Yeah, when the courts strike down anti-abortion laws, they're "legislating from the bench." When they invalidate gun control or campaign finance laws they're just "following the Constitution." The conservatives have said this crap so long, they're actually starting to believe it, apparently. Godspeed (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Absurdities like "legislating from the bench" are only the next logical step if 60% of a country start to think in partisan terms about every single fucking issue there is in politics. Suddenly the question what judge is appointed to the supreme court becomes a question with which the President makes a statement of intention. The SCOTUS doesn't seem to be an actual supreme court anymore but a bunch of old farts with the power to veto something if they feel icky about it. I hope these assholes dragging this stuff before the supreme court get Obamacare validated and Prop 8 invalidated, thereby not just shooting themselves in the foot but right ahead in the stomach. --★uːʤɱ sinner 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Justice Thomas technically retarded? He hasn't asked a question at a hearing in like 7 years. Moonshot926 (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with many of you, so I have nothing to contribute except for my theory on Thomas. I think he thinks he's being mystery man. Senator Harrison(talk) 22:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I just looked it up. He thinks the arguments are a waste of time and a sideshow. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just something to clear up constitutionality issues

Read this. If an individual mandate was good enough for President Washington, it's good enough for me. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and the Health Industry is interstate commerce. Mr. Anon 02:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

But George Washington was a socialist, you know that. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Blasphemy! Saint George Washington is the embodiment of American small-government Conservatism (with a capital "c")! After all, he was a devout Christian! 00:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Is a system where for-profit corporations bribe "elected" officials and run their ad campaigns to enforce their monopolies/oligopolies, your idea of socialism? Has the "regulation" of the banking system that tried to "coerce" banksters into subprime loans, good for the people getting those loans? Is that socialism? Unicow (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Scalia and Alito

So listening to a "highlights" on Cspan, and the two of them are a right wing Talk Show. They are bringing in statistics and "evidence" not entered into record in their attempts to show how bad this would be for the world. "You want to keep the 26 year old addition to insurance. that would literally bankrupt the government'. (um, why? it's private insurance, and THEY ARE BEING PAID for it, by the parents. and the single cheapest time to cover someone is from the time they are 18-25, cause they don't have major issues yet, like heart or lungs or diabetes). sighs. hate these right wing people. And it really looks like the entire bill will be over turned, not just the mandate. I do NOT want gay rights or womens' rights to go before these idiots.Godot What do cats dream about? 21:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh that's just lovely. Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 22:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Although 18-25 isn't as expensive as say, 68-75, it's not as cheap as you might expect. Recklessness is really high in university age people, it's so easy to believe you're immortal when you're 18 -- so that's a range in which they're comparatively likely to get maimed (or killed but the health insurer doesn't have to worry about that) in road accidents, you get lots of sports injuries, psych problems show up, a lot of women are going to want birth control and/or pregnancy services in this age range too and it's a pretty good age for suicide attempts (again, no payout for successes, however although men are more likely to suicide women make a lot of expensive attempts and the counselling to get them to stop is probably also covered in a decent plan). And of course as in my case it's right on schedule for the first of the double-hump incidence curves of some cancers. Old enough for copy errors to stack up, young enough that you almost certainly won't die... if you get expensive treatment.

However: Providing single payer healthcare to all 18-25 (and of course 0-18 and 25-125) citizens hasn't bankrupted the UK, although the current government is trying fairly hard to kill the NHS so that they can claim a big cost saving. The argument that it's not affordable to keep your citizens in good health is so silly that it's worth trying to goad Right Wing politicians in the US into just saying it outright. Not that people won't vote for someone who believes silly things, after all many of these politicians are creationists or want to "teach the controversy". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Gotta' love the insurance industry. Where else can you ask, "What is the exact death rate of people aged 18-25, and how can we monetize that?" Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We declared independence from the British empire in the name of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...as long as you can pay the insurance bill, that is. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's cheep to cover 18-25, i'm saying it's cheeper than any other time in your life, statistically. And, the bill doesn't say what an insurance co gets to CHARGE the parents to keep the kids covered - it just says the kids can stay covered. Insurances are PROFIT rackets, so I'm sure they know how to set a rate that's both slightly affordable, and generates plenty of profit. I know for me at 18, i got FULL INSURANCE for like 40 bucks a month, and now I pay nearly 300 a month. pretty much only do to age (and weight, but that was only an added 50 bucks). Also forcing insurance to cover someone who has a pre existing condition really isn't that costly, cause they will have a seriously high premium or deductable... But those aren't teh right wing talkign points, and salia and alito clearly read Drudge or whatever is today's dissemination of the correct "Right Wing Talking Point".Godot What do cats dream about? 15:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

One question

Would there even be such a constitutional "crisis" if Obamacare was full-on socialized UHC, without the individual mandate? Unfortunately Republicans see it as one and the same. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Although one would be manufactured.--^talk 09:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The right realizes that every ground gained by Democrats is one step closer to single-payer, and they are trying as hard as they can to stop us right here. The right is horrible, but do not underestimate how cunning they are. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is why Ron Paul and his gang of robots are actually quite dangerous. He is the only Republican who has dared threaten Social Security and Medicare themselves. He has the potential to undo 100 years of progress and reduce us to a third-world country through his scare-tactics and misinformation about the debt. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are dozens of modern Republicans who have supported things like "private retirement accounts" and "healthcare savings accounts." For the former, it was actually a major GOP initiative under President George W. Bush. For the latter, it is a central part of Rep. Paul Ryan's several budgets in the past few Congresses.--^talk 03:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We have "private retirement accounts" in Australia, we call it superannuation. It is boss as. Mine actually has money in it now I have a job. Helped Australia through the economic crisis too. We didn't have credit problems because the banks just dipped into the superaccounts when they were low on cash. - π 03:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I have no information on such accounts, or even the feasibility of instituting such a thing in America. All I do know for certain is that there is an astonishing level of cowardice on the part of people like Rep. Ryan, who want to keep all current elderly and middle-aged people locked in to Social Security but kick the young out - even as the young are required to pay for it. It's just robbery of the young by the old: "This program doesn't work and is too generous, but pay for it for us."--^talk 03:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Court is deciding two issues: (1) the mandate to engage in commercial activity; and (2) the provision barring citizens access to Federal courts once a penalty, or tax assessment is made. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 19:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really. They're deciding more things than that. For example, they're deciding whether there's standing to bring a suit at all, since the mandate hasn't gone into effect and the Anti-Injunction Act normally stops people from suing over a tax before it's been assessed. And if they strike down the mandate, they also are deciding if it is severable, i.e. if the mandate is an essential part of the law whose removal would necessitate the negation of the whole law.--^talk 03:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You're referring to Florida's standing to bring a suit against HHS, the current suit being heard. Granting wp:Certiorari gives it standing, I believe. And yes, the whole, or the mandate only could be struck down. If it's all, then back to the drawing board. If the mandate goes, so does the penalty, but the pre-existing conditions section could survive spawning a new crisis and fresh round of the blame game. nobs^{Debate topic: Should AIG get into healthcare insurance and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with insured's premiums?} 01:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing remotely controversial about whether the pre-existing conditions section is constitutional. It's a pretty straightforward regulation on commerce. Syndicalism (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. And the mandate is designed as a way to spread and minimize costs (insurance premiums). If the mandate is struck down, premium costs go way up. So while an individual with a pre-existing condition cannot be denied purchasing insurance, in many if not most cases they may not be able to afford the premiums. And existing policyholders premiums go sky high to pay for the claims made by new purchasers of policies with pre-existing conditions. Thus a fresh round of the blame-game. Obama & the Dems can boast all they want about making insurance undeniable for pre-existing conditions, but if the cost of holding a policy with or without pre-existing conditions is $5000 or $10,000 a month, you sure a fuck can't blame Republicans for that. You can blame the Constitution of the United States then, if anything. nobs^{Debate topic: Should AIG get into healthcare insurance and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with insured's premiums?} 01:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob is correct. The Obama administration has admitted that the mandate is a crucial part of Health Care Reform, even going as far as saying that the pre-existing condition mandate might as well be removed should the individual mandate be struck down. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes, the mandate is one of the main reasons why Obamacare will lower the national deficit, rather than increase it. If the mandate was severed and struck, an alternative way would have to be found. This is very unlikely to happen, though, given that it was unbelievably difficult to get anything passed in the first place with a Senate supermajority and House majority.--^talk 07:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Another question

Right, give Rob's been repeating it ad nauseum, I get that one of the right wing's problems with HusseinCare (bet they wish they'd thought of that years ago as a descriptor) is that the government is forcing someone to buy a product. So, someone enlighten me with the answers to the following questions:

1. You guys have tax forms right?
2. You have to complete them in a certain way or earn a penalty, right?
3. If I filled out a US tax form in a made-up language, that would be counted as not completing the form correctly and earn me a penalty, right?
4. I know your forms are different to ours (yours obviously speak about Monopoly money currency), but does it not say anywhere on these forms that you should "Complete in blue or black ink"?
5. Given last time I cut myself what came out of my body wasn't blue or black ink, how is HusseinCare requiring you to get insurance different to you being required to support the blue and black ink industry to fill out your tax forms?
6. Or does the government issue free pens?

-- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 16:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

These are interesting points. However, even non-filers are required to purchase insurance. There are approximately 165 million adults in the US and another 150 million child dependents. All adults, with or without dependents, are required to purchase insurance for themselves and their dependents. This has nothing to do with income tax, of which there are only about 140 million personal income tax filers. Obamacare law tasks tghe IRS (Internal Revenue Service) to collect a "penalty" from adults who do not comply with the law. The penalty is estimated at about $900 per individual. The fine for two married adults with one dependent would be about $2700. And the IRS normal collection process would apply. This means radically expanding the size of IRS's workforce.

On another point, the US govt. is trying to do away with paper filing, and mandate electronic filing. nobs^{Debate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 20:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Neatly avoiding the question there Robbo. How does the mandate in HusseinCare (requiring private citizens to purchase a product from private industry) differ from being mandated to fill in tax returns in a certain manner (thereby requiring private citizens to purchase blue or black ink, or a computer and internet connection from private companies)? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 00:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

How does compulsion to enter into a permanent, involuntary, binding civil contract differ from reporting compliance with federal tax law? By this reasoning, if Congress voted to order us into the gas chambers it would legal, correct?

Oh, and an argument can be that the requirement of an individual to fully disclose his income with the threat of penalties for false statements and non-compliance conflicts with a persons Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination and not being compelled to give evidence against yourself. nobs^{Debate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 19:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Gas chambers Rob? Really? You're missing the point either deliberately or because you simply can't grasp the simple concept I'm putting before you. In order to fill out a tax return in paper format, private citizens are forced by the government to buy blue or black ink. This is fact. So why is this concept all of a sudden an issue when it applies to health insurance? Why isn't Hurlburt's blog providing over-the-top coverage to some wingnut law suit that calls the tax reporting forms unconstitutional for the same reason that's being brought against Obamacare? Should I number these questions so you can actually answer them without straying off-topic yet again? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You forgot postage stamps; the income tax filing requirement is really a government plot to sell more postage stamps. As if their monopoly control of the Post Office wasn't enough. Greedy bastards. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 21:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So you're confirming that there's no difference and ObamaCare should be upheld against that challenge? Thanks Rob. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 21:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So you're comparing buying pens and pencils, or a cheeseburger at McDonald's, to entering into a binding contract. To a certain extent, you are correct. Answer me this question: government regulators have installed 72 hour right of rescission rules to protect consumers from greedy, evil, money grubbing capitalist profiteers and businessmen. Is it fair that these regulations apply to some businesses, but not all? Why shouldn't the law apply to barbers and undertakers, for example, if we truly believe in justice and equality, and the people we elect to write and enforce our laws believe in the same? nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 22:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Gloating

Since Rob brought this discussion up again: this is the space wherein I gloat over the fact that Obamacare was found to be wholly constitutional. That is all.--^talk 10:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Good call. You seemed to have had unwavering confidence throughout this debate that the conservative dominated Court ultimately would do the constitutional and lawful thing. Congratulations. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 12:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That's gracious of you, Rob! For my part, I will say that it was a hell of a lot more contentious than I thought it would ever be, and that it only passed muster by the taxation power - when I thought it was also constitutional under Commerce and Necessary and Proper.--^talk 00:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And we all know how much you hate those conservatives. You must be so angry. Don't worry, though, if you help re-elect Obama we can get a less conservative court. Let's start by pushing that evil Justice Roberts off the court! Mr. Anon (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Bush v. Gore and Citizens United v. FCC have doomed the credentials of all five conservative justices. Blue (pester) 03:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In the transcripts there was a hint Roberts conceded everything Verilli argued (though I'd never admit it at the time) while he continued with hypotheticals that bordered on the absurd. I could probably find it if I had to. Kennedy remained contentious throughout, and since he was considered the likely swing vote at the time, no one took note of Robert's concessions. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 03:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@Blue, Justices Rhenquist, O'Conner, & Stevens ruled in Bush v Gore, so your disagreement seems more with the nebulous concept of "conservative" rather than with "all five justices." nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 03:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, it seems my talking points got the better of me. I suppose I just meant Citizens United. Blue (pester) 04:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What would you suggest as an alternative to free speech? public financing where taxpayers are forced to subsidize speech, ideas, and persons they object to? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 05:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If taxpayers didn't have to pay for things we didn't like, our nation would fall apart, Rob. I don't like my tax money subsidizing oil companies and I certainly wouldn't like my tax money to subsidize candidates with whom I strongly disagree, but I don't think that government shouldn't subsidize things in general, be they economic or political expenditures. If public campaign financing is done neutrally, there is a clear practical benefit to our political system. Regulations on money in campaigns might be "regulating speech," but you know what, we have always regulated speech in some way. Blue (is useful) 21:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean, Blue. I've got my own helicopter and I'm sick and tired of having to pay for the peons' roads. But I do it out of the goodness of my heart. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did Justice Roberts uphold the mandate?

Commenting on the Snowden case wp:Daniel Ellsberg offers a plausible explanation for Justice Roberts out of character action upholding the healthcare mandate.

I don't see how democracy can survive when one branch, the executive branch, has all the personal communications of every member of Congress, and every judge, every member of the judiciary, as well as the press, the fourth estate that I have just been describing. I don't see how the blackmail capability that's involved there will not be abused.

nobs^{Jesus loves you and I love you, but nobody else does.} 04:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You've just suggested a vast conspiracy theory. Jesus Christ Rob, go out and see the world. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The mandate

In the final analysis, the idea of a mandate is a very conservative solution. Unlike single payer collectivism, the mandate requires personal responsibility. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 21:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course. That's why it was a conservative idea - the original plans were formulated by the Heritage Institute. That's also why it was and is wild opportunistic hypocrisy when the GOP refused to even participate in the plan or vote for it.--^talk 00:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It's kinda like Nixon creating the EPA, OSHA, or imposing wage & price controls. Despite all our deeply held prejudices, things are not always as they seem. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 00:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

How is it anything like Nixon creating the EPA or OSHA?--^talk 01:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You know what is going to happen, in 20-30 years time when everyone has got use to the system and likes it, Democrats are going to try to reform it and Republicans are going to embrace the mandate and say that Obamacare was an attempt to steal credit for their idea. Pi 3:14 (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nixon was alleged to be the candidate of big business. EPA (with it's environmental impact assessments, for example) has been a thorn in the side of big business (denying construction of pipelines and refineries, for example). OSHA likewise has been a tool of labor unions to impose costly labor standards on employers in workplaces.

In less than 20 or 30 years, there will probably be some social safety net installed, cause of the 30 million required to pay, millions will skirt it. (Not to argumentative personally, I see expanding poverty levels, but Obamacare only exacerbates underlying problems). nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 01:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

So... the two situations are not at all comparable, then? Because Democrats didn't try to filibuster OSH or remove funding for the EPA.

Not a very smart thing to say. I'm sure there must be a situation where Democrats once advocated for something, and then ten years later began shrieking nonstop about how terrible it is. You might have to go back a century or so, but it must exist.--^talk 01:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The EPA, with the economic impact on the lifestyles of every American through its immense regulatory power, is far reaching. No nuclear power plant, for example, has been built in the US is nearly half a century (leaving us dependent on coal, etc). "Big Business" viewed this as a sell out to environmentalist, and the effects of Nixon's action we feel to this very day. Obamacare (aka Gestapocare) we agree is a very conservative measure, and it's effects will be felt generations from now. It won't be long before the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden start bellyaching how unfair it is to require them to purchase insurance (starting at $900 per capita annually, indexed for inflation) for themselves, their spouses, and children. And when the man comes along and asks, "Your papers, please", and you don't have an insurance policy for your child, you're guilty of child neglect cause society has determined a child has a right to food, clothing, housing, and medical insurance. They only way to make the law work is to put teeth into it. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 15:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Obamacare (aka Gestapocare) Nothing to see here, folks. Blue (is useful) 01:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)