• 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

j-mac said:
Well, thanks for playin'....Someone call the SCOTUS, boo doesn't see the need, send 'em all home.
Click to expand...

I'll call if you think it will help. :roll; But let's stay with what is actually being said first.

Public option in this country will NEVER fly, so you can just forget it.
Click to expand...

So, that led us to the mandate. And don't forget to address this part : . . . but I doubt those who went crazy over that option will stand up and take their fair share of blame as to where we ended up.


5-4 still means that Obamacare goes bye, bye.....And Kennedy was asking more Libertarian style questions today, which are leading the pundits to surmise that he will fall to the right.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes it does, as does the same count in reverse means it stays. And I do agree that Kennedy and Roberts may hold the key here.
 
iguanaman said:
You are talking about single payer which is what medicare is, sadly that was deemed too radical and we have kept the private insurers and their huge CEO salaries. This tax is nothing but an incentive to get people who can afford insurance to buy it instead of sponging off the Govt. and costing the rest of us 25% extra on our premiums. The Govt. does not want anyone to pay it, just get insurance for pete's sake.
Click to expand...


pretty much.

if the mandate is tossed and the law collapses, however, single payer becomes an option again as soon as enough people are shut out of the system by costs.

the government may not be able to mandate that people buy private, for-profit insurance. medicare, however, does not fall in that category.
 
RightOfCenter said:
I edited that post and added more to it. And I assure you that I know what it means and am starting to think that you don't have a better answer to that question than Mr. Verrilli did.
Click to expand...

Again, the bill does not create commerce. The commerce that the law regulates is the health care system which comprises about 18% of GDP. In other words, one out of about every five dollars spent in this country is spent on health care. Kennedy's question was idiotic and Verrilli smacked it down easily.
 
Helix said:
pretty much.

if the mandate is tossed and the law collapses, however, single payer becomes an option again as soon as enough people are shut out of the system by costs.

the government may not be able to mandate that people buy private, for-profit insurance. medicare, however, does not fall in that category.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but the single payer system may actually be within the scope of the Commerce Clause. The mandate is not and it is going to wreck the Affordable Care Act.
 
One of my favorite sources for Supreme Court information is SCOUTUSBlog.com. It is neither right wing nor left wing, but has writers from both. They give very good, detailed and well balanced analyses of SCOTUS activity.

For today's coverage: Menu of today

From one of today's articles, and interesting take: Argument recap: It is Kennedy’s call (FINAL UPDATE 3:14 pm) : SCOTUSblog

If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him. But if he does not, the mandate is gone. That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up — with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior.
If the vote had been taken after Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., stepped back from the lectern after the first 56 minutes, and the audience stood up for a mid-argument stretch, the chances were that the most significant feature of the Affordable Care Act would have perished in Kennedy’s concern that it just might alter the fundamental relationship between the American people and their government. But after two arguments by lawyers for the challengers — forceful and creative though they were — at least doubt had set in and expecting the demise of the mandate seemed decidedly premature.
Click to expand...

Seriously interesting article, I can't recommend it enough. The guy who wrote it has been covering SCOTUS for 54 years and knows his ****, and is the only person to earn a plaque in the Supreme Court press room.
 
Harshaw said:
Then it should be easy to explain exactly how. Do so. See if you can do better than Nancy Pelosi's "are you KIDDING???" explanation.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AdamT said:
Again, the bill does not create commerce. The commerce that the law regulates is the health care system which comprises about 18% of GDP. In other words, one out of about every five dollars spent in this country is spent on health care. Kennedy's question was idiotic and Verrilli smacked it down easily.
Click to expand...

I don't see a Constitutional problem with Congress enacting laws against pre-existing conditions or regulating the insurance agency. The problem is the mandate which forces people to engage in commerce by requiring them to purchase health care to make the rest of the bill workable. This is creating commerce. So I'll ask again, do you think it is within the power of Congress to create commerce in order to be able to regulate it?
 
AdamT said:
Again, the bill does not create commerce.
Click to expand...

Well, first off it is not a bill anymore, it is law. Second, of course it 'creates commerce'. Look, if I don't buy health insurance right now and this law forces me to buy health insurance, then you (government) have force me to engage in commerce, and you (government) will then regulate it.

j-mac
 
RightOfCenter said:
I don't see a Constitutional problem with Congress enacting laws against pre-existing conditions or regulating the insurance agency. The problem is the mandate which forces people to engage in commerce by requiring them to purchase health care to make the rest of the bill workable. This is creating commerce. So I'll ask again, do you think it is within the power of Congress to create commerce in order to be able to regulate it?
Click to expand...

As stated in the hearing, they are already in the market. No one can really opt out. Sooner or later they are hurt or will become seriously ill and will be treated. All that is to be decided is how or if they will pay for it. This is what is too often missed in this debate. you cannot really opt out of getting care, and those who are not insured too often pass that cost onto the rest of us. Like the uninsured driver, it is the financial harm they cause others that leads to this needing to be mandated.
 
Redress said:
One of my favorite sources for Supreme Court information is SCOUTUSBlog.com. It is neither right wing nor left wing, but has writers from both. They give very good, detailed and well balanced analyses of SCOTUS activity.

For today's coverage: Menu of today

From one of today's articles, and interesting take: Argument recap: It is Kennedy’s call (FINAL UPDATE 3:14 pm) : SCOTUSblog



Seriously interesting article, I can't recommend it enough. The guy who wrote it has been covering SCOTUS for 54 years and knows his ****, and is the only person to earn a plaque in the Supreme Court press room.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the website. It was a great read and very informative.
 
Boo Radley said:
As stated in the hearing, they are already in the market. No one can really opt out. Sooner or later they are hurt or will become seriously ill and will be treated. All that is to be decided is how or if they will pay for it. This is what is too often missed in this debate. you cannot really opt out of getting care, and those who are not insured too often pass that cost onto the rest of us. Like the uninsured driver, it is the financial harm they cause others that leads to this needing to be mandated.
Click to expand...

I don't buy the argument that people who aren't purchasing health insurance are driving prices up. It's this law requiring insurance companies to cover anyone who wants insurance that is driving up prices. The only real way to create a healthcare system that is going to both work and comply with the Constitution is a single-payer system.
 
So according to some of the arguments I have read, requiring someone to buy health insurance is unconstitutional but making the taxpayer pick up the tab when the dead beat cant pay his medical bill isn't? You do realize this idea was originally a republican idea and all this resistance is ONLY happening to impact President Obama's re-election? Well, unfortunately for Republicans, killing obamacare may be the worse mistake they could possibly make, resulting in a rallied base and strong message to run on for the democratic party....i believe Romney will appear quite irrelevant hammering Obama for being "Unconstitutional" when indeed he implemented the same policy when he was governor.

I still think it will be upheld, all these legal "experts" are not mind readers, any responsible justice would want to hammer both sides to create the best argument. I see it being 6-3 or 5-4 with Kennedy ruling in favor of upholding the mandate. If these conservatives do indeed strike down this law and sentence millions of children and elderly to their deaths, it will be a very unfortunate day to be an American. Requiring someone to buy healthcare is NOT unconstitutional, if that was indeed the case, Social Security and Medicare would also be deemed unconstitutional was well, and I think we all can agree that wont be happening anytime soon.

Hell...what the hell would I even want to pay health insurance for anymore? I will just be a dead beat as well and let everyone else pick up my tab, i mean, its in the constitution.

<<<<----- dying to hear Romneys "Alternative" to Obamacare. Does it involve Rich getting better healthcare while the poor die and suffer? Romney is so fake its painful to watch.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
As stated in the hearing, they are already in the market. No one can really opt out. Sooner or later they are hurt or will become seriously ill and will be treated.
Click to expand...

Nope, not good enough...I didn't carry health insurance after I got out of the Army, until I was in my mid 30s. Until then everything I used health care for, was paid cash. It is foolish to think that when you are young that everyone is going to be either seriously hurt, or ill.

you cannot really opt out of getting care, and those who are not insured too often pass that cost onto the rest of us.
Click to expand...

So, make those responsible for getting the care, responsible for paying for it. It is a cop out to say in a general sense that 'everyone' or 'all'. Look, here in SC, you don't pay your hospital bill, they take your tax return....

Like the uninsured driver...
Click to expand...

Woah....Stop right there. it is an apples and bull dozers argument to compare health insurance to auto insurance.

it is the financial harm they cause others that leads to this needing to be mandated.
Click to expand...

Please provide me the federal mandate covering Auto insurance....I'll wait


j-mac
 
RightOfCenter said:
I don't buy the argument that people who aren't purchasing health insurance are driving prices up. It's this law requiring insurance companies to cover anyone who wants insurance that is driving up prices. The only real way to create a healthcare system that is going to both work and comply with the Constitution is a single-payer system.
Click to expand...

As in most cases, there is more than one thing involved, but the point is, someone will pay for them if they are irresponsible. They really cannot opt out.

And yes, I agree that a single payer system is the best and most logical answer. I think we agree on that.
 
Boo Radley said:
And yes, I agree that a single payer system is the best and most logical answer. I think we agree on that.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I don't really want that either. I think it's a unnecessary intrusion into liberty. But it is a more efficient way to change our health care system and, more importantly, a Constitutional way of doing it.
 
j-mac said:
Nope, not good enough...I didn't carry health insurance after I got out of the Army, until I was in my mid 30s. Until then everything I used health care for, was paid cash. It is foolish to think that when you are young that everyone is going to be either seriously hurt, or ill.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you think that matters. As in all things, some people get lucky, Others don't. had you been unlucky, you'd have been part of the statistics of people responsible people paid for.

And please, lose the Bush all or nothing thinking. There's a range, with people falling all over the spectrum.

So, make those responsible for getting the care, responsible for paying for it. It is a cop out to say in a general sense that 'everyone' or 'all'. Look, here in SC, you don't pay your hospital bill, they take your tax return....
Click to expand...

it really can't be done without denying emergency care. As a people, we've been unwilling to do that. But you're free to argue we should.


Woah....Stop right there. it is an apples and bull dozers argument to compare health insurance to auto insurance.
Click to expand...

Nope, they are quite similar in terms of the rationale.



Please provide me the federal mandate covering Auto insurance....I'll wait


j-mac
Click to expand...

Don't have to. State government is as much government as federal. It really makes no difference to the rationale, to what is currently being argued. If you want to change the debate, admitting that they are similar, but that it needs to mandated at a state level, then that should be the argument you want advanced to the SCOTUS.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Don't get me wrong, I don't really want that either. I think it's a unnecessary intrusion into liberty. But it is a more efficient way to change our health care system and, more importantly, a Constitutional way of doing it.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as an intrusion. Those who can afford it would still be able to afford and would have nothing taken away. Those who can't afford it would merely have better access. Let's face it, for those without that would be freeing.
 
Boo Radley said:
It really makes no difference to the rationale, to what is currently being argued. If you want to change the debate, admitting that they are similar, but that it needs to mandated at a state level, then that should be the argument you want advanced to the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would see the individual mandate working much better at a state level. I'm not very familiar with the Massachusetts policy, but apparently it worked for them there and since (as far as I know) it is still the law there, the Massachusetts Constitution is also apparently fine with it.
 
Last edited:
RightOfCenter said:
Actually, I would see the individual mandate working much better at a state level. I'm not very familiar with the Massachusetts policy, but apparently it worked for them there and since (as far as I know) it is still the law there, the Massachusetts Constitution is also apparently fine with it.
Click to expand...

It might, but as I said, that should be the argument. I think states failure to address the problem is what opens the door for the feds.
 
RightOfCenter said:
That's probably something we'll never see eye to eye on. The way I see it, the more government intervenes in my life the less freedom I have.
Click to expand...

you're likely correct, but intrusion implies something different. Providing access, opening doors, meeting needs and solving problems doesn't seem to fit the definition of intrusion to me.

in·tru·sion
   [in-troo-zhuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an act or instance of intruding.
2.
the state of being intruded.
3.
Law .
a.
an illegal act of entering, seizing, or taking possession of another's property.
b.
a wrongful entry after the determination of a particular estate, made before the remainderman or reversioner has entered.

Intrusion | Define Intrusion at Dictionary.com
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure why you think that matters. As in all things, some people get lucky, Others don't. had you been unlucky, you'd have been part of the statistics of people responsible people paid for.
Click to expand...

After I told you that health care I used I paid for, you can still say that someone else would have to pay for me? That is some real convoluted thinking you got there Joe.

And please, lose the Bush all or nothing thinking.
Click to expand...

Stop with the foolish Axlerod style character appeals to emotion and then we can talk.....:roll:

it really can't be done without denying emergency care. As a people, we've been unwilling to do that. But you're free to argue we should.
Click to expand...

Bull. Maybe you should stick to teaching English. :wink:

Nope, they are quite similar in terms of the rationale.
Click to expand...

Nope, wrong again. One is to cover others for your own possible mistake, and the other is to cover yourself.

Don't have to. State government is as much government as federal.
Click to expand...


OMG....FAIL! Read the Constitution dude....:lol: This statement is so good, I am going to use it in my quotes of the mindless at the bottom of the page when I post....

Keep in mind people, these are the people teaching our kids.


j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom