I have a question. I have been extremely busy lately, and haven't had time to read up on this.
Was it a 5-4 decision, with Kennedy being the swing vote?
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
People forget that since Congressional Republicans refused to impose any new taxes on anyone regardless of the reason, what we got in the PPACA was the best compromise our dysfunctional Congress could get. Still, I'll try to put this ruling into perspective.
Those who compared the individual mandate to auto insuance were right. Why? Because what it comes down to is "jurisdiction" and "individual responsibility". Let's see if folks can follow the logic...
You don't need auto insurance unless you buy a vehicle. You register that vehicle within the state where you reside. Your state mandates that you should have auto insurance otherwise, you face paying a fine if you get caught driving without it. Well, the exact same thing will now happen with health insurance. Why was Congress able to do this?
1) The Supreme Court had long ruled that insurance was part of interstate commerce and Congress could regulate certain parts of the insurance market. (1944, SEIA -vs- US)
2) Since Congress has jurisdiction over interstate commerce and has the enumerated power to levy a tax, it determined that the best way to ensure all U.S. citizens received heath care was to cast a wide net and provide as many options as possible for people to get health insuracne on as many levels as possible - private markets thru employers, senior citizens via Medicare, poor people via Medicaid, veterans via the VA, active duty service personnel via Tri-Care. The states also have a stake in the health insurance markets by virtue of implementing the health insurance exchanges. Moreover, they can even start high-risk pools to cover those individuals who have chronic or serious illnesses (i.e., pre-existing conditions).
3) There are opt-out provisions within the PPACA for individuals, businesses, organizations and even the states. All they'd need to do is apply for waivers or in the case of the states to simply opt-out of the federal rules and apply their own thus implementing their own health care system. To my knowledge, despite 26 states filing suit against the PPACA only one state has even tried to submit a waiver - Washington.
It's about legal jurisdiction, not forcing someone to buy something they neither want or need. And it's about finding a practical solution to our nation's health care problem using the process of governance though our federal legislative system to put forward the best methodolgies to solve the health care problem. You may not like it, but Congress acted in a manner which it saw fit under the parisan circumstances. The irony here is many of the provisions of the PPACA including the individual mandate were Republican ideas.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 06-28-12 at 11:06 AM.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.