• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

buck said:
And yet they will be forced to engage in commerce.
Click to expand...

They are already engaged. They will be ill. They will have a serious injury. Sooner or later. There is no opt out.
 
Boo Radley said:
They are already engaged. They will be ill. They will have a serious injury. Sooner or later. There is no opt out.
Click to expand...

They're dead, so I find that unlikely. One from a car accident (dead at scene), one from an overdose (dead at scene) and another had a heart attack (died in bed).

Edit: Additionally, my good friend has an older uncle that has never been to a doctor (we've discussed this due to Obamacare). It's possible he may need to see a medical professional eventually. However, it is also possible that he never will.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
"The ninth justice, conservative Clarence Thomas who is expected to vote against the law, asked no questions. He has not asked a question from the bench for more than six years."


Is anyone surprised? This intellectual lightweight is nothing more than deadspace.
Click to expand...

Nothing compels Thomas to speak so he doesn't. His choice.... and he's there fore life and his vote still counts like everyone elses. Lightweight or not... deadspace or not.
 
buck said:
They're dead, so I find that unlikely. One from a car accident (dead at scene), one from an overdose (dead at scene) and another had a heart attack (died in bed).
Click to expand...

People do have these things and not die, and are treated. And we pay. Until you you either do die, or we decide to let you die, you cannot opt out of the system. You are already engaged. We're just paying for your irresponsibility.
 
Boo Radley said:
They are already engaged. They will be ill. They will have a serious injury. Sooner or later. There is no opt out.
Click to expand...

There is a tiny minority of people who go through their whole life without having to see a doctor, but of that tiny minority, an even tinier minority will manage to avoid significant health care costs at the very end.

Some startling statistics:

It's not surprising that individuals in their last year of life consume a disproportionate share of medical resources. One percent of the population accounts for 30 percent of the nation's health care expenditures. Nearly half of those people are elderly.

Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly, spends nearly 30 percent of its budget on beneficiaries in their final year of life. Slightly more than half of Medicare dollars are spent on patients who die within two months.
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
There is a tiny minority of people who go through their whole life without having to see a doctor, but of that tiny minority, an even tinier minority will manage to avoid significant health care costs at the very end.

Some startling statistics:
Click to expand...

Yep I know that. But thanks.

It is also true, that while we over all spend most of our money at the end, young people, uninsured young people do also get ill and injured. They too are already engaged in the commerce.
 
Ockham said:
Nothing compels Thomas to speak so he doesn't. His choice.... and he's there fore life and his vote still counts like everyone elses. Lightweight or not... deadspace or not.
Click to expand...

I could hardly disagree with Thomas more, but I do not think he's a light weight at all. Nor does it bother me much that he doesn't ask questions. In fact I think he's right that oral arguments are more of a dog and pony show than anything else. If it's not in your brief then the Court should not consider it. If you didn't make your case in your brief you're probably going to lose regardless of what happens during the argument. An astounding number of briefs were filed in this particular case. I can't imagine what could come out of argument that hasn't already been briefed multiple times in nauseating detail.
 
Boo Radley said:
People do have these things and not die, and are treated. And we pay. Until you you either do die, or we decide to let you die, you cannot opt out of the system. You are already engaged. We're just paying for your irresponsibility.
Click to expand...

They were not engaged. Just because some people that have the same situation will survive and be engaged in commerce, does not mean that everyone will. So, to the original point, some people are not and will never be engaged in commerce, but will now be forced (by the government) to be. It may be rare, I don't have statistics, but it does happen.
 
AdamT said:
In a nutshell? Congress has almost unfettered power to regulate interestate commerce, and the health care system is interstate commerce writ about as large as it gets. The test is whether Congress has stated a rational basis for the law, and that they undoubtedly have. The Supreme Court has held that the interstate commerce clause allowed Congress to prevent a man from growing wheat on his own farm for his own consumption. That should give you some idea how far reaching it is.
Click to expand...

If the mandate stays, your statement above would say "Congress has almost unfettered power to regulate interstate commerce..." It would also say that Congress and the Federal Government now has precedent to mandate citizens purchase a good or service, because it says so. If the mandate stays... we've crossed the Rubicon.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yep I know that. But thanks.

It is also true, that while we over all spend most of our money at the end, young people, uninsured young people do also get ill and injured. They too are already engaged in the commerce.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I suspected that you knew. :)

Further, EVEN IF someone never ever spends a penny on medical care, they are AFFECTING the interstate health care market. Health insurance is about spreading risk, and when you take young, healthy people out of the risk pool it drives up costs for everyone else. That was essentially the holding in the Wickard case that TD alluded to above. Even though a farmer was growing wheat on his own land for his own consumption, the Court held that it affected interstate commerce, because it reduced the amount of wheat he would have otherwise bought. In other words, the Court was essentially saying that Congress could FORCE HIM TO BUY wheat. Hmm, sounds familiar....
 
buck said:
They were not engaged. Just because some people that have the same situation will survive and be engaged in commerce, does not mean that everyone will. So, to the original point, some people are not and will never be engaged in commerce, but will now be forced (by the government) to be. It may be rare, I don't have statistics, but it does happen.
Click to expand...

Everyone will sooner or later (as the number would have to be so small as to not matter statistically). But as we cannot know in advance, you have to assume all. You have to prepare for all. Doing as we have has shown clearly that we will be paying for people who were irresponsible.
 
Ockham said:
If the mandate stays, your statement above would say "Congress has almost unfettered power to regulate interstate commerce..." It would also say that Congress and the Federal Government now has precedent to mandate citizens purchase a good or service, because it says so. If the mandate stays... we've crossed the Rubicon.
Click to expand...

No, not really, because health care is unique, being the only market that no one can opt out of. The arguments being made to justify the mandate would not apply in any other situation that I can think of.
 
AdamT said:
No, not really, because health care is unique, being the only market that no one can opt out of. The arguments being made to justify the mandate would not apply in any other situation that I can think of.
Click to expand...

Hence, my using the word precedent. Most things start out being unique... until they're not anymore.
 
AdamT said:
No, not really, because health care is unique, being the only market that no one can opt out of. The arguments being made to justify the mandate would not apply in any other situation that I can think of.
Click to expand...

Everyone eats food. Everyone lives in some sort of housing. Everyone uses transportation of some sort. Everyone breaths air.

As was said, if the court uphold this, it unleashes government in a way far more draconian than ever before. America as it was meant to be would be dead.

All due to the 'we want free stuff' people and those that fight for their right to free stuff. The old adage 'be careful what you wish for' does apply, and eventually in this potential new
'america' they dreamed of, they will realize how wrong they were.
 
Arbo said:
Everyone eats food. Everyone lives in some sort of housing. Everyone uses transportation of some sort. Everyone breaths air.

As was said, if the court uphold this, it unleashes government in a way far more draconian than ever before. America as it was meant to be would be dead.

All due to the 'we want free stuff' people and those that fight for their right to free stuff. The old adage 'be careful what you wish for' does apply, and eventually in this potential new
'america' they dreamed of, they will realize how wrong they were.
Click to expand...

First, nothing is free. But largely our house prices don't go up because you can't buy a mansion. I don't pay more for my car because you don't have one. Like auto insurance, the point here is that when you don't buy insurance, and then need health care, we end up paying for it. Thus we are harmed financially by your irresponsibility.
 
Boo Radley said:
Everyone will sooner or later (as the number would have to be so small as to not matter statistically).
Click to expand...

Man kids die violently in their 20's (car accidents, shootings, etc). As we all know, those are the healthiest people and least likely to use medical care (more likely to have never seen a doctor). However, clearly, some people will be forced by government to engage in commerce that otherwise would not be. I have no idea of the numbers.

Just out of curiosity, do you say the same thing about voter ID laws? The number that have no way of ever obtaining a free ID are statistically insignifcant so that they don't matter in what hte government does?
 
Boo Radley said:
First, nothing is free. But largely our house prices don't go up because you can't buy a mansion. I don't pay more for my car because you don't have one. Like auto insurance, the point here is that when you don't buy insurance, and then need health care, we end up paying for it. Thus we are harmed financially by your irresponsibility.
Click to expand...

Then fix the system by, oh I dunno, using the Constitution. Quit working to destroy the nation by bypassing it.

And get out the word to all those 'we want free stuff' people that nothing is free. They seem to be missing that point by a wide margin.
 
buck said:
They were not engaged. Just because some people that have the same situation will survive and be engaged in commerce, does not mean that everyone will. So, to the original point, some people are not and will never be engaged in commerce, but will now be forced (by the government) to be. It may be rare, I don't have statistics, but it does happen.
Click to expand...
Let them pay their health care tax along with their Federal taxes, then.
 
I was laughing in disgust at the endless tweets at the bottom of Ed's MSNBC show that try to equate laws for car insurance to the mandate.

Can we really not understand the difference between the state's obligations if you DECIDE to buy a car, and the federal government forcing you to buy a product against your will?
 
Ockham said:
If the mandate stays, your statement above would say "Congress has almost unfettered power to regulate interstate commerce..." It would also say that Congress and the Federal Government now has precedent to mandate citizens purchase a good or service, because it says so. If the mandate stays... we've crossed the Rubicon.
Click to expand...

This is a great counterpoint. If, God forbid, this thing is ruled constitutaional, what kid of toliet paper do you think they'll make us buy? :mrgreen:
 
TurtleDude said:
that's a silly comment. Having argued a couple dozen federal appellate cases I note that often judges ask questions that appear to be nothing more than trying to outdo the people sitting next to them. Maybe listening makes more sense-especially to the advocates who have spent hundreds of hours on the cases
Click to expand...

There can be an element of that. But not asking a single question in 6 years I think is a completely different matter. Clarence Thomas is a disgrace to the court. He has no business sitting on the highest court in our land.
 
Billy the Kid said:
This is a great counterpoint. If, God forbid, this thing is ruled constitutaional, what kid of toliet paper do you think they'll make us buy? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Even Sotomayor seems to be struggling with this (though I don't for a second think she'll vote to strike it down).

Every one of those justices knows this will change the Constitution entirely, as well as the government's power over people. In effect, the Constitution will be ruled to be null and void.
 
Arbo said:
Everyone eats food. Everyone lives in some sort of housing. Everyone uses transportation of some sort. Everyone breaths air.

As was said, if the court uphold this, it unleashes government in a way far more draconian than ever before. America as it was meant to be would be dead.

All due to the 'we want free stuff' people and those that fight for their right to free stuff. The old adage 'be careful what you wish for' does apply, and eventually in this potential new
'america' they dreamed of, they will realize how wrong they were.
Click to expand...

Well, as you may have noticed, the government can and does regulate food production. And of course the government also regulates air quality. So you seem to making a pretty argument for the mandate.
 
AdamT said:
Well, as you may have noticed, the government can and does regulate food production. And of course the government also regulates air quality. So you seem to making a pretty argument for the mandate.
Click to expand...

There are some things the fed should do. Like ensure a certain level of safety in the food we eat and air we breath. But those have nothing to do with forcing people to buy something that individual liberty mandates they have a choice to buy or not buy of their own will.
 
AdamT said:
Well, as you may have noticed, the government can and does regulate food production. And of course the government also regulates air quality. So you seem to making a pretty argument for the mandate.
Click to expand...

By your arguments, there is nothing the federal government can't require you to do.

According to everything you've said, why can't the federal government require you to keep your house painted in neutral colors, and keep it decluttered and depersonalized? After all, we're in a housing crisis and all the experts say that's what it takes to get a house sold. Oh, you don't want to sell your house? That's OK; according to your arguments, the federal government can require you to do that, too. As well as buy another one.

I look forward to your explanation as to why that's different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom