I don't understand the Texas judge's reasoning on ACA

Kal'Stang · Jan 9, 2019

jaeger19 said:
The militia was their private citizen lives. they were private citizens. That was the idea of the militia.

No. The militia acts regulated what happened when they were called into service. Not what happened in their private lives. Hence the words "every citizen, so enrolled and notified"

jaeger19 said:
So? If you do buy one.. even a model T.. its going to come with all sorts of things that were mandated by the federal government for safety. The newer.. the more stuff. Just a fact.. you are mandated to purchase those things.

Nope. :shrug: Because I don't have to buy a car.

jaeger19 said:
Bull. Obviously you have never owned a business.. or if you do.. are simply being obtuse.

No one has to run a business. Right?

jaeger19 said:
The minute you buy a pharmaceutical you do.

Of my own volition. I don't have to by a pharmaceutical.

jaeger19 said:
The minute you purchase just about anything.. you are being forced to purchase all sorts of other features or safeties that are required by the federal government.

And yet, I don't have to buy anything.

jaeger19 said:
I suppose you can claim.. well well well.. I live off the grid.. and produce my own food, wear animal skins or fig leaves from plants I grow my self, only use home remedies .. etc.. but that's just you being purposely obtuse.

Nope. I even own a car. But the point is that I don't HAVE to buy anything. If I do buy anything then it is of my own volition.

jaeger19 said:
Yep.. you don't seem to.

Even you admitted that the courts have changed the meaning of the commerce clause. Yet you're saying that I don't?

jaeger19 said:
Not in the case of obamacare. In fact.. part of the problem is that you don't even know what obamacare is. While I have read it.. you obviously don't even know what it is.

Obamacare is way way more than just a mandate to have health insurance.

Actually it would. Heck.. justice scalia had already expanded the commerce clause tremendously in Raich v Gonzales. If the government can regulate.. NO TAX.. mind you.. but regulate the growth of marijuana that is legally grown on private property..solely in one state.. and only for the use of that person.. without ever leaving the state.

Certainly it has the power to regulate. and thus mandate healthcare insurance which crosses state lines all the time.

but again.. obamacare is not just a mandate. In fact.. the mandate is a minor part of the totality of obamacare. I'd say an important piece to make sure that people are not mooching off others.. .but whatever.

The mandate is the only part that I have a problem with and the only thing I am speaking to.

jaeger19 · Jan 9, 2019

Kal'Stang said:
No. The militia acts regulated what happened when they were called into service. Not what happened in their private lives. Hence the words "every citizen, so enrolled and notified"

Yep.. they had to have procured it when they showed up. they had to show up with it.. which means that they had to procure those items in their private lives.

Nope. Because I don't have to buy a car.

Nor do you have to live in the US.. so good.. you are not then mandated to have healthcare insurance in America. See how that works?

No one has to run a business. Right

And no one HAS to live in the US.. so see above. If you want to play at being obtuse.. I can show you just how obtuse your argument is.

Of my own volition. I don't have to by a pharmaceutical

. Of your own volition. you can leave the us.

Nope. I even own a car. But the point is that I don't HAVE to buy anything

Nor do you HAVE to live in the US.. so there.

Like I said.. you want to play obtuse and claim you don't have to buy medicines, or cars, or food, or basically anything else in this country.. all of which is regulated by the federal government in interstate and international commerce. Great.. then you don't have to LIVE in the US.. so you aren;t being forced to buy healthcare either.

Its your argument.....

Even you admitted that the courts have changed the meaning of the commerce clause. Yet you're saying that I don't

You don't what? understand the commerce clause? Yes.. you don't understand it.

understand obamacare? Yes.. you don't understand it.

understand commerce? Yes.. you don't understand it.

AS far as the mandate? Its constitutional under not only the commerce clause but under provide for general defense and promote the general welfare.

wellwisher · Jan 10, 2019

CriticalThought said:
1. The individual mandate is considered a tax since SCOTUS ruled on it.
2. The GOP could not repeal it outright so they reduced the individual mandate to $0.
3. The GOP argued this somehow invalidates the entire law since there is no longer a mechanism to keep free riders from refusing to join the insurance market.
4. The judge agreed that the law is unconstitutional because...the GOP lowered the tax.

Am I missing something? By that logic could you not argue all taxes are unconstitutional if one party or the other reduces them to 0? Couldn't the alternative argument be that until ACA is repealed that it has to have an individual mandate tax and that lowering it to 0 was actually unconstitutional?

The Government cannot force anyone to buy products on the free market. If they could do that donors would pay politicians to force their products on everyone. They can't say that you need to buy a GM automobile, or everyone is forced to buy an iPhone or else.

The way around this was the individual mandate; forced to buy, was argued to be tax, and not a club that can force one to buy a given product. But since now the tax has been reduced to zero, it is no longer a tax, but only a club that violates commerce laws. That is what makes it unconstitutional.

For example, say Trump decided that due to illegal immigration all citizens need to buy a gun for protection. Trump cannot do that since the government cannot force people to buy a good or service. If he calls this mandate a tax then the game changes, as shown by Obama Care. But if the tax revenue stream was to dry up, then it defaults back to the commerce clause.

jaeger19 · Jan 10, 2019

wellwisher said:
The Government cannot force anyone to buy products on the free market. .

Actually in reality they can and do all the time.

They cannot force you to buy or obtain a certain companies product.. but yes.. they can force you to purchase or obtain a certain type of product.

Deuce · Jan 10, 2019

wellwisher said:
The Government cannot force anyone to buy products on the free market. If they could do that donors would pay politicians to force their products on everyone. They can't say that you need to buy a GM automobile, or everyone is forced to buy an iPhone or else.

The way around this was the individual mandate; forced to buy, was argued to be tax, and not a club that can force one to buy a given product. But since now the tax has been reduced to zero, it is no longer a tax, but only a club that violates commerce laws. That is what makes it unconstitutional.

For example, say Trump decided that due to illegal immigration all citizens need to buy a gun for protection. Trump cannot do that since the government cannot force people to buy a good or service. If he calls this mandate a tax then the game changes, as shown by Obama Care. But if the tax revenue stream was to dry up, then it defaults back to the commerce clause.

Even if you accept all of this, that only overturns the *mandate*. Not the entire bill.

CFI302 · Jan 19, 2019

jaeger19 said:
Actually in reality they can and do all the time.

They cannot force you to buy or obtain a certain companies product.. but yes.. they can force you to purchase or obtain a certain type of product.

Such as? I recently did my weekly grocery shopping. What did I buy that the government forced me to buy?

CFI302 · Jan 19, 2019

Deuce said:
Even if you accept all of this, that only overturns the *mandate*. Not the entire bill.

Why didn't Obama, when the Court ruled in favor of the Obamacare mandate, say their reasoning was faulty?

Why, if something is supposed to be so good in what it does, is there need for a mandate? If someone can show me how something they support is so good, regardless of what it is, they don't have to force me to do it. I'll do it because I agree with what they say about it being good.

Greenbeard · Jan 20, 2019

CFI302 said:
Why, if something is supposed to be so good in what it does, is there need for a mandate? If someone can show me how something they support is so good, regardless of what it is, they don't have to force me to do it. I'll do it because I agree with what they say about it being good.

Because if you can't be penalized for having a pre-existing condition, it's rational to forgo insurance until you develop a condition. An individual mandate changes the economic calculus in the same way instituting pre-existing condition exclusions or experience-rated premiums would: it provides the necessary incentive to carry health insurance even when one is healthy instead of simply free-riding.

CFI302 · Jan 20, 2019

Greenbeard said:
Because if you can't be penalized for having a pre-existing condition, it's rational to forgo insurance until you develop a condition. An individual mandate changes the economic calculus in the same way instituting pre-existing condition exclusions or experience-rated premiums would: it provides the necessary incentive to carry health insurance even when one is healthy instead of simply free-riding.

If you knew something was as good as it's claimed, you still have to be told to use it?

If someone is healthy, there is no incentive to have coverage. If they don't use the system, they aren't free riding. What I also support is if THOSE making the choice to not have coverage fall into a situation where they can't pay for something they need, they have two options. Either get some bleeding heart Liberal that claims to care for them to do it or go without. I believe that personal responsibility is a major part of it. I've found that those on the left side of the aisle don't hold those making bad decisions accountable, they want the rest of us to be part of a system that picks up the slack for those who aren't responsible.

Greenbeard · Jan 20, 2019

CFI302 said:
If you knew something was as good as it's claimed, you still have to be told to use it?

If someone is healthy, there is no incentive to have coverage.

You answered your own question.

If they don't use the system, they aren't free riding.

Under a system that protects those with pre-existing conditions (like that supported by a majority of the American public and like that which now exists), they are.

CFI302 · Jan 20, 2019

Greenbeard said:
You answered your own question.

Under a system that protects those with pre-existing conditions (like that supported by a majority of the American public and like that which now exists), they are.

The question was to you. I didn't ask myself.

You can't free ride unless you use something.

I don't understand the Texas judge's reasoning on ACA

Outer space potato man