Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43

Thread: Not Florida Thread: Obamacare and the Individual Mandate

  1. #1

    Not Florida Thread: Obamacare and the Individual Mandate

    [QUOTE][B][U][SIZE="6"]Justice Roberts: Can the government make you buy a cell phone?[/SIZE][/U][/B]

    Politico

    Opponents of the individual mandate provision of President Obama's health care law contend that if the government can force you to buy health insurance, its powers of compulsion are virtually unlimited. Chief Justice John Roberts wonders what else Washington can force citizens to buy in this exchange:


    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, the same, it seems to me, would be true say for the market in emergency services: police, fire, ambulance, roadside assistance, whatever. You don't know when you're going to need it; you're not sure that you will. But the same is true for health care. You don't know if you're going to need a heart transplant or if you ever will. So there is a market there. To -- in some extent, we all participate in it. So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services? You can just dial 911 no matter where you are?

    GENERAL VERRILLI: No, Mr. Chief Justice. think that's different. It's -- We -- I don't think we think of that as a market. This is a market. This is market regulation. And in addition, you have a situation in this market not only where people enter involuntarily as to when they enter and won't be able to control what they need when they enter but when they --

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It seems to me that's the same as in my hypothetical. You don't know when you're going to need police assistance. You can't predict the extent to emergency response that you'll need. But when you do, and the government provides it.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE][B][U][SIZE="6"]Kennedy: Individual Mandate Fundamentally Changes Relationship Of Gov't[/SIZE][/U][/B]

    Real Clear Politics

    During the debate of the Obamacare mandate at the Supreme Court Justice Kennedy says that the mandate fundamentally changes the relationship of a citizen with the government.

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: The key in Lochner is that we were talking about regulation of the States, right, and the States are not limited to enumerated powers. The Federal Government is. And it seems to me it's an entirely different question when you ask yourself whether or not there are going to be limits in the Federal power, as opposed to limits on the States, which was the issue in Lochner.

    SOLICITOR GENERAL VERRILLI: I agree, except, Mr. Chief Justice, that what the Court has said as I read the Court's cases is that the way in which you ensure that the Federal Government stays in its sphere and the sphere reserved for the States is protected is by policing the boundary: Is the national government regulating economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce?

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule.

    And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE][B][U][SIZE="6"]Toobin: Obama healthcare reform law 'in grave, grave trouble'[/SIZE][/U][/B]

    The Hill

    A top legal analyst predicted Tuesday that the Obama administration's healthcare reform legislation seemed likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

    Jeffrey Toobin, a lawyer and legal analyst, who writes about legal topics for The New Yorker said the law looked to be in "trouble." He called it a "trainwreck for the Obama administration."

    "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong," Toobin said Tuesday on CNN. "I think this law is in grave, grave trouble."

    Toobin's observation came on the second day of oral arguments at the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

    Earlier that day, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who could be the deciding vote on whether to uphold the law, told Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that there appeared to be a "very heavy burden of justification" on aspects of the law, according to The Wall Street Journal.

    Toobin described Kennedy as "enormously skeptical" during the arguments Tuesday.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said tough questions from the justices did not indicate how the court would rule and took to task a legal analyst who said otherwise.

    “I’ve been in court a lot more than Jeffrey Toobin and I had arguments, federal, circuit, Supreme Court and hundreds of times before trial courts,” Reid said. “And the questions you get from the judges doesn’t mean that’s what’s going to wind up with the opinion.”
    [/QUOTE]

    Perhaps, given the seriousness of whats happening in the Supreme Court right now, we could move away from the issues of a local Florida criminal investigation, and on to issues that really matter?

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Jerseystrong
    Posts
    18,942
    All depends on your situation really.

    I could care less, end of the day im going to be paying the same per month, so I dont care.

    Now race wars, thats exciting!

  3. #3
    I've read up on many of the arguments being made and my short form conclusion:

    If they would have passed single payer healthcare it would have been constitutionally acceptable. This hybrid where people are forced to buy a product from a private company at the behest of the government took it too far. I believe the mandate will be declared unconstitutional. Fortunately Obamacare does not work without the mandate and as such the entire law will be repealed.

    Now what they should have passed. They should have passed a single payer "catastrophic illness" plan to cover major illnesses and surgeries. Statistics show that 50% of healthcare money goes to pay for 5% of the people that are very sick. This single payer plan could have covered the 5% of "very sick" patients. This would have been in the form of a surcharge on every dollar earned (kind of like a payroll tax except that it counts on dividends cap gains etc.) Then people could still choose to buy much much cheaper insurance plans to cover the everyday stuff and incidentals, prescriptions etc. Obamacare went too far with the long list of coverage mandates, kids till 26 yrs old, free pills, free checkups, free everything etc. They took it too far.

  4. #4
    I appreciate how large this will loom in the upcoming election...

    Obama shoves unconstitutionally deemed mandate down Americans throats...

    SC overturns said mandate...

    Campaign is then run entirely on social/race issues and R takes the bait...

  5. #5
    Single payer is socialism, wasn't that the mantra?



    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4419667]I've read up on many of the arguments being made and my short form conclusion:

    If they would have passed single payer healthcare it would have been constitutionally acceptable. This hybrid where people are forced to buy a product from a private company at the behest of the government took it too far. I believe the mandate will be declared unconstitutional. Fortunately Obamacare does not work without the mandate and as such the entire law will be repealed.

    Now what they should have passed. They should have passed a single payer "catastrophic illness" plan to cover major illnesses and surgeries. Statistics show that 50% of healthcare money goes to pay for 5% of the people that are very sick. This single payer plan could have covered the 5% of "very sick" patients. This would have been in the form of a surcharge on every dollar earned (kind of like a payroll tax except that it counts on dividends cap gains etc.) Then people could still choose to buy much much cheaper insurance plans to cover the everyday stuff and incidentals, prescriptions etc. Obamacare went too far with the long list of coverage mandates, kids till 26 yrs old, free pills, free checkups, free everything etc. They took it too far.[/QUOTE]

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,976
    The individual mandate should be deemed unconstitutional, the entire act should be struck down, and the President and Congress need to start from scratch.

    They got it all wrong.

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    :byebye::byebye::byebye::byebye:

  8. #8
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,623
    [QUOTE=parafly;4419755]The individual mandate should be deemed unconstitutional, the entire act should be struck down, and the President and Congress need to start from scratch.

    They got it all wrong.[/QUOTE]

    +10000

    This should be an interesting case. It'll be the benchmark for John Roberts's career as Chief Justice. After reading the analysis from today it looks like the entire decision will come down to Justice Kennedy, who will play the role of the swing vote.

    One thing I don't understand... Justice Kagan used to be solicitor general (the government's attorney) before being nominated to the bench. Clearly she worked on the formation of the law. How is she not required to recuse herself from this case?

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,697
    Images
    142
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4419821]One thing I don't understand... Justice Kagan used to be solicitor general (the government's attorney) before being nominated to the bench. Clearly she worked on the formation of the law. How is she not required to recuse herself from this case?[/QUOTE]

    I have a pet theory on this: The conservatives are using her participation as an ace in the hole.

    If the decision goes in favor of the health care bill, a lawsuit will be launched challenging her participation in the decision.

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=rbstern;4419841]I have a pet theory on this: The conservatives are using her participation as an ace in the hole.

    If the decision goes in favor of the health care bill, a lawsuit will be launched challenging her participation in the decision.[/QUOTE]

    Hadn't thought of that one. You might be on to something there.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=cr726;4419721]Single payer is socialism, wasn't that the mantra?[/QUOTE]

    I don't give two ****s about a mantra. I think for myself. You should give it a try once in a while instead of spewing talking points and snide comments.

  12. #12
    When will the SC make it's final ruling? Before or after the election?

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4419954]I don't give two ****s about a mantra. I think for myself. You should give it a try once in a while instead of spewing talking points and snide comments.[/QUOTE]

    Seriously? You're a trendsetter? Commenting on politics and what actually occurred in the past is a bad thing? single payer was viewed a pure socialism by the GOP, true or false? Maybe you should try not being a revisionist. :yes:

  14. #14
    If you like being a slave to the government buy Obamacare. But pay for it out of your own pocket. On a side note the Solicitor General can't make up his mind if it is a tax or a fine.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=Frequent Flyer;4419991]When will the SC make it's final ruling? Before or after the election?[/QUOTE]

    June

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4419821]+10000

    This should be an interesting case. It'll be the benchmark for John Roberts's career as Chief Justice. After reading the analysis from today it looks like the entire decision will come down to Justice Kennedy, who will play the role of the swing vote.

    One thing I don't understand... Justice Kagan used to be solicitor general (the government's attorney) before being nominated to the bench. Clearly she worked on the formation of the law. How is she not required to recuse herself from this case?[/QUOTE]

    1) The solicitor general is not a legislative position. They don't have input on the details of legislative work as a matter of course. If she was aasked for an advance opinion, I'm sure she would have recused herself.

    2) Judges' questions are important, but not predictive. I've seen cases where the guy who got hit hard by the judges lost, sure - but also cases where that side won (judges were leaning that way and wanted to make sure there were no holes that they hadn't already caught; the other guy got softballs since he was already going to lose, no point in knocking him around, too)

    That said, I think the Court will work very hard to have this be a 6-3 decision.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,675
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4419650]Perhaps, given the seriousness of whats happening in the Supreme Court right now, we could move away from the issues of a local Florida criminal investigation, and on to issues that really matter?[/QUOTE]

    you mean Obuttock's shredding of the Constitution? Its scary. See Dennis Leary's rant in [I]Demolition Man[/I] about steak, jello, and Playboy. :yes:

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,613
    talk about "R's taking the bait"...if the "principled" "independent" or "libertarian" dopes that should have known better, but didn't, didn't enable (D) in 2006 and 2008 we wouldn't have had this issue
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 03-28-2012 at 08:38 AM.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4420086]1) The solicitor general is not a legislative position. They don't have input on the details of legislative work as a matter of course. If she was aasked for an advance opinion, I'm sure she would have recused herself.

    2) Judges' questions are important, but not predictive. I've seen cases where the guy who got hit hard by the judges lost, sure - but also cases where that side won (judges were leaning that way and wanted to make sure there were no holes that they hadn't already caught; the other guy got softballs since he was already going to lose, no point in knocking him around, too)

    That said, I think the Court will work very hard to have this be a 6-3 decision.[/QUOTE]

    I know you are on the record supporting the Constitutionality of (Specificly) the mandate, counselor.

    What I'd like to ask you, as a subject matter expert, are two things:

    -The mandate goes beyond regulating commerce, by mandating that someone not engaged in commerce must (even against their will) engage in commerce with a private (non-Govt) entity, or pay a penalty. Are there any other Laws that you are aware of that force an individual to engage in commerce against their will with another private business?

    -If teh mandate is found to be constitutional, what specific piece of the Constitution would bar the Govt. for implementing future mandates on other issues they (at that moment) might decide is "unique" and "vital" and the other descriptors teh State has used to describe Healthcar? For example, what specific section fo the commerce clause (the basis for the mandate from what I've read0 would stop the Governemnt from writing a Law down the road, using the healthcar mandate as precedent, that requires all Americans to own a firearm for self-protection? Or to own a certain design of electric car for thier own transportation needs (as every person at one time or another will engage in the act of transporting themseleves somewhere).

    I'm not asking if these "other" mandates are silly, I'm asking what stops teh Govt. for having teh legal power, once the healthcare mandate is found legal, from doing these things.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4420104]talk about "R's taking the bait"...if the "principled" "independent" or "libertarian" dopes that should have known better, but didn't, didn't enable (D) in 2006 and 2008 we wouldn't have had this issue[/QUOTE]

    I respectfully disagree.

    The poor performance of President G.W. Bush is the direct and primary cause of the (D) super-majority takeover of Congress and the Presidency. Had Bush not been so thoroughly poor, in matters both Millitary and Economic, there is much less chance that Congress shifts to a super-majority (D) or that a relative greenhorn like Obama defeats a professional like John McCain.

    Certainly, moderates/independants went to Obama in droves, but instead of demonizing them, you may want to explore the idea that the flaw was more with the types of candidates (R) is putting forth, rather than the desire of the middle to not support those candidates.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us