• 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

Boo Radley said:
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
Click to expand...

in·trude   [in-trood] Show IPA verb, -trud·ed, -trud·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to thrust or bring in without invitation, permission, or welcome.
 
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...

It is certainly the uninsured, in part, who drive up health care costs. Inevitably many of them go to emergency rooms for treatment and they can't pay their bills. In order to cover that expense hospitals raise their rates, which in turn increases everyone's insurance costs. But the main reason for the requirement is that you can't tell insurance companies they have to cover people with preexisting conditions unless provide some method to dissuade people from going bare until they get sick, and only then buying insurance. That would take a lot of healthy people out of the insurance pool, thus raising rates for everyone else. In other words, the mandate is part and parcel of the regulation of the health care market as a whole.

And isn't it absurd to suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to impose this penalty, which would affect about 2% of the population, but it DOES have the power to impose a full-blown national health care system?
 
RightOfCenter said:
in·trude   [in-trood] Show IPA verb, -trud·ed, -trud·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to thrust or bring in without invitation, permission, or welcome.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't think that is what it amounts to. if it comes about, it will be through elected representatives, who will invite, to meet a need and solve a problem. For those without, it opens and not closes a door. It frees them to have some sembelance of security and care when needed.
 
AdamT said:
It is certainly the uninsured, in part, who drive up health care costs. Inevitably many of them go to emergency rooms for treatment and they can't pay their bills. In order to cover that expense hospitals raise their rates, which in turn increases everyone's insurance costs.
Click to expand...
The mandate isn't aimed at people who can't pay their bills. It's aimed at people who can afford health insurance but choose not purchase it.

But the main reason for the requirement is that you can't tell insurance companies they have to cover people with preexisting conditions unless provide some method to dissuade people from going bare until they get sick, and only then buying insurance. That would take a lot of healthy people out of the insurance pool, thus raising rates for everyone else. In other words, the mandate is part and parcel of the regulation of the health care market as a whole.
Click to expand...
As Scalia said today, the solution here is to not tell insurance companies that they have to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It is still creating commerce by forcing people to purchase a product they do not want.


And isn't it absurd to suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to impose this penalty, which would affect about 2% of the population, but it DOES have the power to impose a full-blown national health care system?
Click to expand...
First, the text in bold is completely irrelevant to the Constitutionality of the argument. Second, no. As you have said, the health care system is obviously an interstate commerce issue as it is nearly 20% of our GDP. My problem with the Affordable Care Act is the individual mandate.
 
RightOfCenter said:
The mandate isn't aimed at people who can't pay their bills. It's aimed at people who can afford health insurance but choose not purchase it.


As Scalia said today, the solution here is to not tell insurance companies that they have to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It is still creating commerce by forcing people to purchase a product they do not want.



First, the text in bold is completely irrelevant to the Constitutionality of the argument. Second, no. As you have said, the health care system is obviously an interstate commerce issue as it is nearly 20% of our GDP. My problem with the Affordable Care Act is the individual mandate.
Click to expand...

Well no disrespect to Justice Scalia, but he isn't in Congress and it isn't his business to tell them what policies they should pursue. The preexisting condition issue is one of the main problems that the Act set out to address. Another issue is people who are free riding in the existing system.

I'm surprised that the oral argument didn't bring up the fact that this is NOT the first time that Congress has mandated that Americans purchase something. In fact in the Second Militia Act of 1792, none other than our Founding Fathers mandated that able bodied men purchase firearms and supplies.
 
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...

But they've never required anyone to purchase anything before.

Reconcile that. If it's a "no-brainer," it shouldn't require much explanation.

BTW, have you given up the idea that it's also "clearly" a tax?
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Well no disrespect to Justice Scalia, but he isn't in Congress and it isn't his business to tell them what policies they should pursue. The preexisting condition issue is one of the main problems that the Act set out to address. Another issue is people who are free riding in the existing system.

I'm surprised that the oral argument didn't bring up the fact that this is NOT the first time that Congress has mandated that Americans purchase something. In fact in the Second Militia Act of 1792, none other than our Founding Fathers mandated that able bodied men purchase firearms and supplies.
Click to expand...

The Militia Act wasn't an exercise of the Commerce Clause.
 
Harshaw said:
But they've never required anyone to purchase anything before.

Reconcile that. If it's a "no-brainer," it shouldn't require much explanation.

BTW, have you given up the idea that it's also "clearly" a tax?
Click to expand...

I believe I JUST got through saying that they have required people to purchase things before. And "they" in this case was the Founding Fathers themselves.
 
Harshaw said:
The Militia Act wasn't an exercise of the Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...

True. So your argument would be that Congress has unfettered power to force people to buy things, but only in connection with the militia clause?
 
AdamT said:
I'm surprised that the oral argument didn't bring up the fact that this is NOT the first time that Congress has mandated that Americans purchase something. In fact in the Second Militia Act of 1792, none other than our Founding Fathers mandated that able bodied men purchase firearms and supplies.
Click to expand...

I would think that would fall under raising and supporting armies, not the Commerce Clause.
 
RightOfCenter said:
I would think that would fall under raising and supporting armies, not the Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...

Is there a less stringent standard for Congressional action under the militia clause?
 
AdamT said:
And isn't it absurd to suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to impose this penalty, which would affect about 2% of the population, but it DOES have the power to impose a full-blown national health care system?
Click to expand...

No.

Because they could impose a national health care system that is purely government controlled, thus like social security, is government forced on the people. Whereas what they are doing now is requiring people to buy from private industry.

Hopefully the court decided in line with the Constitution for a change, and get's rid of this horrible legislation that will do nothing but increase our nations debt and provide for a lower quality of healthcare.
 
AdamT said:
Is there a less stringent standard for Congressional action under the militia clause?
Click to expand...

I would argue that armies need weapons and ammunition to operate and during that period expecting members of the militia to provide their own weapons wasn't inconceivable. Congress can supply that army however it pleases, even if it means forcing the members of that army supply their own weapons. Raise and support. Whereas the commerce clause says "regulate" not "Create and regulate."
 
RightOfCenter said:
The mandate isn't aimed at people who can't pay their bills. It's aimed at people who can afford health insurance but choose not purchase it.

As Scalia said today, the solution here is to not tell insurance companies that they have to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It is still creating commerce by forcing people to purchase a product they do not want.

First, the text in bold is completely irrelevant to the Constitutionality of the argument. Second, no. As you have said, the health care system is obviously an interstate commerce issue as it is nearly 20% of our GDP. My problem with the Affordable Care Act is the individual mandate.
Click to expand...
I could live with all of those conditions if people want to sign a non-revocable "Do Not Treat" form when they turn 18. Then it's simple. If they want medical care they cough up the money in advance. If they don't have $50 to see the doctor, hit the road. If they haven't saved $50k for the life-saving operation they need at 40, too bad, they had 22 years to save and didn't. Yeah - I'm good with that.
 
AdamT said:
Right, because we all know that law school grades are the ultimate measure of intelligence. That's how we know that Obama is a genius. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Roberts was number one in his class as was Alito. Bow to the real masters of the universe!! But the fact remains, Mitchell told WH Counsel Peter Keisler (Romney wins expect him on the DC CC or the USSC) and Lee Liberman (Otis) that if Bush didn't nominate a black to replace TM, the nominee would be "Borked"
 
MoSurveyor said:
I could live with all of those conditions if people want to sign a non-revocable "Do Not Treat" form when they turn 18. Then it's simple. If they want medical care they cough up the money in advance. If they don't have $50 to see the doctor, hit the road. If they haven't saved $50k for the life-saving operation they need at 40, too bad, they had 22 years to save and didn't. Yeah - I'm good with that.
Click to expand...

until you need 300k to save you or your childs life, you will be asking god for forgiveness for the statement you just made. What goes around comes around, karma can be quite unforgiving when she comes to visit.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Or maybe it's because the Act is constitutional, and it's a no-brainer that it is, but conservatives on the Court are so politically motivated that they will probably find a way to rule against it. See Bush v. Gore.
Click to expand...

anyone who claims that the mandate is a no brainer constitutional is clearly unlearned about constitutional law.

Actually the only reason why a rational conservative judge would uphold it is a conservative who follows even bad precedent (see Jeffrey Sutton, 6th CoA)

bush v gore-you mean the case where 7 (SEVEN) dem trial judges in florida found for Bush and the SCOFLAW overruled them and threw out their FINDINGS OF FACT?
 
SypherAL said:
until you need 300k to save your life, what a selfish statement. What goes around comes around, karma can be quite unforgiving when she comes to visit.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, your existence is not a just claim on the property or time of someone else
 
TurtleDude said:
Like it or not, your existence is not a just claim on the property or time of someone else
Click to expand...

Like I said before, once you need a life saving operation or your kid gets really sick you will be eating your words, I hope you are denied ALL coverage, but then again you probably either A. Inherited money from your parents B. Have never had to witness a loved one struggle to receive medical care to save their life C. Have no idea what your talking about and/or just dont care about human life in general.
 
Last edited:
The Supreme court is not going to rule based on the constitution....if that was the case they would have voted 6-0 in favor of Obamacare today. It's always been about political ideology and returning the favor to the party that put you in the seat, its always been like that, and always will be. I am actually not that worried about it being shot down, the democratic base needs to wake up, hopefully this will do it. The GOP can say goodbye to the entire black, hispanic, and women vote if this happens....like they should really be trying to piss these groups of voters off anymore as it is.
 
Last edited:
SypherAL said:
The Supreme court is not going to rule based on the constitution....if that was the case they would have voted 6-0 in favor of Obamacare today. It's always been about political ideology and returning the favor to the party that put you in the seat, its always been like that, and always will be.
Click to expand...

You don't know anything about the Supreme Court, do you?
 
SypherAL said:
Like I said before, once you need a life saving operation or your kid gets really sick you will be eating your words, I hope you are denied ALL coverage, but then again you probably either A. Inherited money from your parents B. Have never had to witness a loved one struggle to receive medical care to save their life C. Have no idea what your talking about and/or just dont care about human life in general.
Click to expand...

There's some good liberal using alinsky stuff right there.

Compassion my backside.
 
SypherAL said:
Like I said before, once you need a life saving operation or your kid gets really sick you will be eating your words, I hope you are denied ALL coverage, but then again you probably either A. Inherited money from your parents B. Have never had to witness a loved one struggle to receive medical care to save their life C. Have no idea what your talking about and/or just dont care about human life in general.
Click to expand...

You seem rather bitter but the fact remains--your life is not my responsibility and the government shouldn't force me to be charitable to you. That being said I am a strong supporter of private charity and your snide comments are just plain ignorant. my son was born with a birth defect and has had 17 surgeries. I have good insurance because I worked hard and got a good job that has good insurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom