Amazed wrote:
But honestly guys: revamping your healthcare system to one that actually works for most of your citizens won't make the sky fall down.
Do you mean most or all? Cuz I think most of our citizens have some coverage.
300 million Americans
-40 million uninsured
_____________________
260 million covered (I think that would qualify as most.)
The Army teaches soldiers to Leave No Man Behind. That wimp judge obviously never served in the military.
d and d-
very nicely said
nice dissertation, now hear this:
No individual living in the United States can help being a part of the health care market. If you choose (for whatever reason) not to have health insurance coverage, that does not mean that you are not participating in the health care market—and it does not mean the health care services you will inevitably receive at some point in your life have no economic value. (commerce) Rather, you have simply chosen a different way to structure your particular health care transaction—namely, by relying upon the rest of us to pay for the consequences of your decision not to have coverage.
In the end, you may have chosen not to pay for health insurance coverage, but you have not chosen to avoid an economic transaction (the one the rest of us are paying for, get it?)
Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the aggregate effect on interstate commerce of all those individuals who have chosen to engage in that particular economic transaction.
constitutional - yes
So if this judge thinks the law is unconstitutional, why didn't he issue an injunction to stop implementation of the law? I understand he had that authority, yet did not use it.
legally blonde wrote:
nice dissertation, now hear this:
No individual living in the United States can help being a part of the health care market. If you choose (for whatever reason) not to have health insurance coverage, that does not mean that you are not participating in the health care market—and it does not mean the health care services you will inevitably receive at some point in your life have no economic value. (commerce) Rather, you have simply chosen a different way to structure your particular health care transaction—namely, by relying upon the rest of us to pay for the consequences of your decision not to have coverage.
In the end, you may have chosen not to pay for health insurance coverage, but you have not chosen to avoid an economic transaction (the one the rest of us are paying for, get it?)
Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the aggregate effect on interstate commerce of all those individuals who have chosen to engage in that particular economic transaction.
constitutional - yes
Everybody needs housing. Everybody is going to engage in living in a house or apartment at some time in their life. Does the government have the ability to order you to buy bricks or lumber?
The only reason people are nearly guaranteed to participate in the health care market is because EMTALA makes hospitals serve people who can't pay for those services. If mandatory health insurance coverage is constitutional, it shoiuld be constitutional regardless of EMTALA. The argument rests on prior government action.
One question for the educated few....
If it is ruled unconstitutional that the government can force someone to buy health insurance will this also mean that it is unconstitutional for the government to force individuals to pay for medicade and Medicare that they are not using right now and may never use?
Correct me if i'm wrong but if you rule that the government can not force people to buy insurance then this pretty much means that the government can not force anyone to pay for medicade or medicare. How is one different than the other?
I really am just asking a straight forward question not trying to trap anyone.
legally blonde wrote:
nice dissertation, now hear this:
No individual living in the United States can help being a part of the health care market. If you choose (for whatever reason) not to have health insurance coverage, that does not mean that you are not participating in the health care market—and it does not mean the health care services you will inevitably receive at some point in your life have no economic value. (commerce) Rather, you have simply chosen a different way to structure your particular health care transaction—namely, by relying upon the rest of us to pay for the consequences of your decision not to have coverage.
In the end, you may have chosen not to pay for health insurance coverage, but you have not chosen to avoid an economic transaction (the one the rest of us are paying for, get it?)
Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the aggregate effect on interstate commerce of all those individuals who have chosen to engage in that particular economic transaction.
constitutional - yes
Since you are too stupid to recognize the obvious alternative of abolishing the laws that force hospitals to treat the uninsured, it's really you who is leaching off the rest of society, forcing your corrupt ethical code on people who don't agree with it. Also, since you conflate opponents of ObamaCare with people who don't purchase insurance, two totally unlike and unrelated things, you are responsible for the intellectual collapse of America that caused the destruction of our healthcare system and everything else of value that ever existed in this country. In summary, you are an utterly worthless, sub-human degenerate and an outright danger to mankind in general, and you aren't needed in the world anymore and never were. Please die and get out of the way so that the few remaining sane members of society can move on with life. Thanks.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
One question for the educated few....
If it is ruled unconstitutional that the government can force someone to buy health insurance will this also mean that it is unconstitutional for the government to force individuals to pay for medicade and Medicare that they are not using right now and may never use?
Correct me if i'm wrong but if you rule that the government can not force people to buy insurance then this pretty much means that the government can not force anyone to pay for medicade or medicare. How is one different than the other?
I really am just asking a straight forward question not trying to trap anyone.
90% of everything that the U.S. government now does is illegal under the constitution. You cannot justify an illegal act of any kind by noting the ongoing commission of other illegal acts; to suggest as much is to say that anything the government does is OK simply because the government chooses to do it. The authority-loving cowards who embrace this mentality are eventually going to get exactly what they are asking for: a totalitarian dictatorship that controls every aspect of life with an iron fist.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Everybody needs housing. Everybody is going to engage in living in a house or apartment at some time in their life. Does the government have the ability to order you to buy bricks or lumber?
The only reason people are nearly guaranteed to participate in the health care market is because EMTALA makes hospitals serve people who can't pay for those services. If mandatory health insurance coverage is constitutional, it shoiuld be constitutional regardless of EMTALA. The argument rests on prior government action.
It is constitutional regardless of EMTALA.
The Court had long debated whether the commerce power authorized federal control only of goods moving through interstate commerce, or of production itself. After Wickard vs Filburn there is no longer the argument about whether "indirect" or only "direct" effects on interstate commerce could be regulated. After this case, which originated during the hard times of the 1930s and 1940s, economic realities would determine the extent of federal regulation.
you indirectly affect health care - which you will use - whether you buy insurance to cover your cost or not. or are you going to where a tattoo that says: do not resuscitate? or are you going to charge the person who called the ambulance for you when you are in a car wreck? or are you just not going to pay your bill? you are part of the commerce whether you like it or not.
we're talking about constitutional validity of health care here I Know Better, try to get your diaper changed quickly - you're getting cranky.
It is clearly debatable whether it is constitutional or not. I would not be surprised if you are ultimately proven correct, but I would not be surprised if it was ruled unconstitutional either.
I'm sure you are aware that there have been some more recent decisions showing the commerce clause was not unlimited e.g. U.S. v. Morrison and U.S. v. Lopez. In Lopez the court set the test that Congress could regulate "activities which affect interstate commerce" among other tests. It is not clear to me that Congress then can regulate inactivities (not buying insurance) which affect interstate commerce.
Allow congress to regulate inactivity as well as activity and there is nothing that congress cannot regulate (it will not surprise me if we arrive at this point, we are already close). Everybody will participate in the housing/lumber/bricks market. Everybody will participate in the food market. Can congress require you to buy certain types of food (like healthy food, since that will also affect the health care market)?
Honestly, if you do away w/ EMTALA, then not everybody will participate in the healthcare market--only those people who can pay for it will participate.
Legally Blonde, I don't have time to respond to you in full right now, but I hope to come back later. In the meantime, you don't know how the commerce clause works. Wickard v. Filburn was about the regulation of production, not the regulation of purchase. I want you think about that distinction for a while. The individual mandate isn't about regulating the production of ANY commodity or service. It is about mandating a PURCHASE. So, while the commerce clause might allow congress to impose some duties on me if I were selling health insurance, because of the potential effect of my activities on interstate commerce, it really has absolutely nothing to do with forcing me to purchase health insurance. Educated people on both sides of the political aisle know this. Join the party.
Your argument essentially begs the question. The fact that participation in the health insurance market is participation in interstate commerce can't be cited to justify commerce clause compulsion of that very participation. That's like saying "if you take action A, we can regulate you. So we're gonna say you HAVE to take action A - oh, and now that you're going to be taking it, booyah, we can regulate you." That's not how these things work.
It won't do to reference the market subsidization of uninsured peoples' health care costs. We're still not producing anything. Believe it or not (you're probably a law school 1L or something with a rudimentary and liberally informed understanding of the clause) the commerce clause actually has limits.
Anyways, the foregoing is all assuming your basic premises are true, and showing that even with that assumption in your favor they cannot possibly support your conclusion. But here's the thing - your premises are flawed as well. I haven't provided any real biographical information in this thread, despite some demonstrative references to "my life, my career," etc. You assume that those of us not buying health insurance are already participating in the interstate health care market. I'm not, though. I do not have health insurance, and I do not need it. I have not been to a doctor of ANY kind in several years. I have not participated in ANY health care market. You're going to tell me that the chance I MIGHT, someday, be a participant in an interstate market justifies congress forcing me to participate in it now against my will? Give me a big, fat, constitutional break. At the very BEST what you have done is argued that congress can mandate health insurance purchase once we DO enter into that market - once I decide to go to the doctor, for example. But as long as I don't, there is NOTHING in your argument that justifies extending this law to me.
Of course, there's nothing in your argument at all, because you fail to grasp the fundamental principle of Wickard and because you don't understand the commerce clause. But I gave your premises a chance and your conclusion was flawed. I gave your conclusion a chance, but your premises were flawed. Read up, and come back later, but you'll still be wrong.
distinctions with a difference wrote:
Legally Blonde, I don't have time to respond to you in full right now, but I hope to come back later. In the meantime, you don't know how the commerce clause works. Wickard v. Filburn was about the regulation of production, not the regulation of purchase. I want you think about that distinction for a while. The individual mandate isn't about regulating the production of ANY commodity or service. It is about mandating a PURCHASE. So, while the commerce clause might allow congress to impose some duties on me if I were selling health insurance, because of the potential effect of my activities on interstate commerce, it really has absolutely nothing to do with forcing me to purchase health insurance. Educated people on both sides of the political aisle know this. Join the party.
Your argument essentially begs the question. The fact that participation in the health insurance market is participation in interstate commerce can't be cited to justify commerce clause compulsion of that very participation. That's like saying "if you take action A, we can regulate you. So we're gonna say you HAVE to take action A - oh, and now that you're going to be taking it, booyah, we can regulate you." That's not how these things work.
It won't do to reference the market subsidization of uninsured peoples' health care costs. We're still not producing anything. Believe it or not (you're probably a law school 1L or something with a rudimentary and liberally informed understanding of the clause) the commerce clause actually has limits.
Anyways, the foregoing is all assuming your basic premises are true, and showing that even with that assumption in your favor they cannot possibly support your conclusion. But here's the thing - your premises are flawed as well. I haven't provided any real biographical information in this thread, despite some demonstrative references to "my life, my career," etc. You assume that those of us not buying health insurance are already participating in the interstate health care market. I'm not, though. I do not have health insurance, and I do not need it. I have not been to a doctor of ANY kind in several years. I have not participated in ANY health care market. You're going to tell me that the chance I MIGHT, someday, be a participant in an interstate market justifies congress forcing me to participate in it now against my will? Give me a big, fat, constitutional break. At the very BEST what you have done is argued that congress can mandate health insurance purchase once we DO enter into that market - once I decide to go to the doctor, for example. But as long as I don't, there is NOTHING in your argument that justifies extending this law to me.
Of course, there's nothing in your argument at all, because you fail to grasp the fundamental principle of Wickard and because you don't understand the commerce clause. But I gave your premises a chance and your conclusion was flawed. I gave your conclusion a chance, but your premises were flawed. Read up, and come back later, but you'll still be wrong.
arn't you already forced to buy health insurance in the form of medicare and medicade...
What is the difference.....
No one has answered this yet.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Honestly, if you do away w/ EMTALA, then not everybody will participate in the healthcare market--only those people who can pay for it will participate.
I'm not so sure this is true. Hospitals and doctors already do all kinds of charity care above and beyond the requirements of EMTALA - and of course the financial burden of those "altruistic" habits gets shifted to paying customers one way or another.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
arn't you already forced to buy health insurance in the form of medicare and medicade...
What is the difference.....
No one has answered this yet.
Medicare and Medicaid are not purchased. They are funded by taxes. Medicare has a dedicated tax. Medicaid is funded by general fund revenues from both federal and state taxes. Taxes are much different legally from a compelled private purchase.
another one wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:Honestly, if you do away w/ EMTALA, then not everybody will participate in the healthcare market--only those people who can pay for it will participate.
I'm not so sure this is true. Hospitals and doctors already do all kinds of charity care above and beyond the requirements of EMTALA - and of course the financial burden of those "altruistic" habits gets shifted to paying customers one way or another.
Some do and some don't. Doctors have absolutely no obligation to provide care for somebody who can't pay outside of the context of the emergency room. Some of them do extra charitable work, some of them don't. This freely undertaken altruism can work in the free market--the care compelled by EMTALA cannot.
I have a question wrote:
So if this judge thinks the law is unconstitutional, why didn't he issue an injunction to stop implementation of the law? I understand he had that authority, yet did not use it.
You are correct that the law is still being implemented. My guess is that the judge realized his ruling may get overturned in light of prior rulings to the contrary and the likelihood of the SC ultimately deciding the outcome.
legally blonde wrote:
we're talking about constitutional validity of health care here I Know Better, try to get your diaper changed quickly - you're getting cranky.
Put a diaper on your head and quit shitting up letsrun with your mental diarrhea.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:arn't you already forced to buy health insurance in the form of medicare and medicade...
What is the difference.....
No one has answered this yet.
Medicare and Medicaid are not purchased. They are funded by taxes. Medicare has a dedicated tax. Medicaid is funded by general fund revenues from both federal and state taxes. Taxes are much different legally from a compelled private purchase.
Thank you that is a much better answer than the last person who tried....