Individual mandate in trouble?

[Polk]

The dumbest thing about this case is that it gets commerce clause jurisprudence backwards. Instead of starting with the mandate, start with guaranteed issue. Does Congress have the authority under the commerce clause to mandate guaranteed issue? The answer is unquestionably yes. At that point, what's the deal with the mandate? It's something to further the end of guaranteed issue. Does it have a rational basis toward furthering that end? Yes. Does health insurance constitute significant interstate commerce? Yes. Under the line of cases following Wickard, the mandate fully falls in line with Congress's authority.

 

[Syphon]

Correct.

That's government intervention in the private market.

The government often intervenes in 'private markets.' Are you fucking stupid or something?

wow, hostility from the right, who knew...

well in the eyes of the law corporations are treated the same as people. remember the famous Romney line, "well corporations are people to." well since the government is mandating "corporations" provide a service to customers regardless of that customers ability to pay, this sets the precedent for the government enacting a mandate on people.

if the government can mandate the a person provide a service to another person regardless of their ability to pay, then why cant the government force a person to pay for that same service?

and so your in agreement that government can intervene in the private sector and force companies to do something that they dont want to do? thanks, noted.

 

[Syphon]

Your being disengenuous with your answer to me.
If this law is passed, yes the government can mandate you wear a brimmed hat outside in the Sun. Spin it until the cows come home

nonsense, my friend. that's absurd.

the mandate is a means of making everyone carry their fair share. that was the individual responsibility that the Heritage Foundation and all the rightwingers wanted. It's only because a democratic president enacted it that the right now takes issue with it.

That's what's disingenuous.

I'll also point out that the commerce power is plenary and direct your attention to Wickard v Filburn.

Wickard v. Filburn | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Yes it is a means of making the people pay a fair share and it's the government who decides the fair share? The commerce power is all encompassing indeed. It's rather nice of you to mention that since it shows the depth of the connection from government to commerce at all levels. Capitalism is commerce based and Capitalism under the control of the government?



OK...

the government sets a minimum standard, like they do in many cases. this have never prevented someone from exceeding those standards.

california has tougher pollution laws than nevada, but they still both must meet the federal minimum standard.

 

[J.E.D]

the liberal justices seem to be siding with the fed gov't, the conservative justices seem to be siding with the states, and Kennedy seems like he could go either way.

do you realize the irony of those positions?

Yeah, I hadn't thought of it that way, but now that you mention it....

 

[J.E.D]

I'd say this is a pretty telling quote from Kennedy that shows he's open to the gov't's argument:

And the government tells us that's because the insurance market is unique. And in the next case, it'll say the next market is unique. But I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree, in the insurance and health care world, both markets -- stipulate two markets -- the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries. That's my concern in this case.

 

[SniperFire]

That's government intervention in the private market.

The government often intervenes in 'private markets.' Are you fucking stupid or something?

wow, hostility from the right, who knew...

well in the eyes of the law corporations are treated the same as people. remember the famous Romney line, "well corporations are people to." well since the government is mandating "corporations" provide a service to customers regardless of that customers ability to pay, this sets the precedent for the government enacting a mandate on people.

'Government' enacts all sorts of mandate on people. You can't drive 135 miles down the highway, or example.

The issue here is whether or not the Federal government has broad, new powers to force a person to participate in commerce to regulate commerce.

You suck at this sort of thing.

 

[Syphon]

I'd say this is a pretty telling quote from Kennedy that shows he's open to the gov't's argument:

And the government tells us that's because the insurance market is unique. And in the next case, it'll say the next market is unique. But I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree, in the insurance and health care world, both markets -- stipulate two markets -- the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries. That's my concern in this case.

the test should be if a person "chooses" to participate in a given market. such as:

does one choose to get sick? does one choose to get cancer? does one choose to have a child born with a birth defect?

vs.

does one choose to [insert question here]. is that a fair test?

 

[Syphon]

The government often intervenes in 'private markets.' Are you fucking stupid or something?

wow, hostility from the right, who knew...

well in the eyes of the law corporations are treated the same as people. remember the famous Romney line, "well corporations are people to." well since the government is mandating "corporations" provide a service to customers regardless of that customers ability to pay, this sets the precedent for the government enacting a mandate on people.

'Government' enacts all sorts of mandate on people. You can't drive 135 miles down the highway, or example.

The issue here is whether or not the Federal government has broad, new powers to force a person to participate in commerce to regulate commerce.

You suck at this sort of thing.

actually there are areas of the country that have no speed limits.

Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox

again are you finally wiling to answer if one chooses to get cancer, or chooses to have a stroke?

 

[Ropey]

nonsense, my friend. that's absurd.

the mandate is a means of making everyone carry their fair share. that was the individual responsibility that the Heritage Foundation and all the rightwingers wanted. It's only because a democratic president enacted it that the right now takes issue with it.

That's what's disingenuous.

I'll also point out that the commerce power is plenary and direct your attention to Wickard v Filburn.

Wickard v. Filburn | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Yes it is a means of making the people pay a fair share and it's the government who decides the fair share? The commerce power is all encompassing indeed. It's rather nice of you to mention that since it shows the depth of the connection from government to commerce at all levels. Capitalism is commerce based and Capitalism under the control of the government?



OK...

the government sets a minimum standard, like they do in many cases. this have never prevented someone from exceeding those standards.

california has tougher pollution laws than nevada, but they still both must meet the federal minimum standard.

This is not about setting standards. That's the Obama HC.

This is about the mandate itself. The engine that drives the Obama HC.

And will drive much, much more imo.

 

[SniperFire]

That's government intervention in the private market.

The government often intervenes in 'private markets.' Are you fucking stupid or something?

wow, hostility from the right, who knew...

well in the eyes of the law corporations are treated the same as people. remember the famous Romney line, "well corporations are people to."

Also, in the context of the First Amendment, Congress shall make no laws restricting the freedom of speech among corporations or any sort of association of peoples.

Romney nailed it.

 

[SniperFire]

wow, hostility from the right, who knew...

well in the eyes of the law corporations are treated the same as people. remember the famous Romney line, "well corporations are people to." well since the government is mandating "corporations" provide a service to customers regardless of that customers ability to pay, this sets the precedent for the government enacting a mandate on people.

'Government' enacts all sorts of mandate on people. You can't drive 135 miles down the highway, or example.

The issue here is whether or not the Federal government has broad, new powers to force a person to participate in commerce to regulate commerce.

You suck at this sort of thing.

actually there are areas of the country that have no speed limits.

[

Your point is non-sequitur. You probably don't know what that means.

 

[Syphon]

The government often intervenes in 'private markets.' Are you fucking stupid or something?

wow, hostility from the right, who knew...

well in the eyes of the law corporations are treated the same as people. remember the famous Romney line, "well corporations are people to."

Also, in the context of the First Amendment, Congress shall make no laws restricting the freedom of speech among corporations or any sort of association of peoples.

Romney nailed it.

so you ignored the rest of my statement, in which i said that the government has provided a mandate on corporation, er i mean people, that they provide services regardless of the customers ability to pay. so under that ruling, they could force car manufacturers to provide all citizens with cars regardless of their ability to pay right? and they could force big screen tv manufacturers to provide all citizens with new tvs, regardless of their ability to pay right?

 

[Polk]

The government often intervenes in 'private markets.' Are you fucking stupid or something?

wow, hostility from the right, who knew...

well in the eyes of the law corporations are treated the same as people. remember the famous Romney line, "well corporations are people to." well since the government is mandating "corporations" provide a service to customers regardless of that customers ability to pay, this sets the precedent for the government enacting a mandate on people.

'Government' enacts all sorts of mandate on people. You can't drive 135 miles down the highway, or example.

The issue here is whether or not the Federal government has broad, new powers to force a person to participate in commerce to regulate commerce.

You suck at this sort of thing.

Except that the government isn't forcing them to participate in commerce. They're already in the market now, they're just choosing to pay for any potential injuries out of pocket.

 

[Syphon]

you keep avoiding the question. answer my simple questions and we can proceed.

nonsense, my friend. that's absurd.

the mandate is a means of making everyone carry their fair share. that was the individual responsibility that the Heritage Foundation and all the rightwingers wanted. It's only because a democratic president enacted it that the right now takes issue with it.

That's what's disingenuous.

I'll also point out that the commerce power is plenary and direct your attention to Wickard v Filburn.

Wickard v. Filburn | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Jillian, I know exactly what the Commerce Clause was set up for, and it was never intended for something like this. IMO it would give sweeping powers to our federal government. You or nobody else will change my mind on that.
I keep saying that I don't trust my government, and this is a great point for my reasoning.

you know "exactly" what the commerce clause was set up to??? really?? you where there when they wrote it and asked them to explain themselves to you directly???

AMAZING!!!!! all of our constitutional questions can now be resolved thanks to 1 single man....

 

[Meister]

you keep avoiding the question. answer my simple questions and we can proceed.

Your being disengenuous with your answer to me.
If this law is passed, yes the government can mandate you wear a brimmed hat outside in the Sun. Spin it until the cows come home

nonsense, my friend. that's absurd.

the mandate is a means of making everyone carry their fair share. that was the individual responsibility that the Heritage Foundation and all the rightwingers wanted. It's only because a democratic president enacted it that the right now takes issue with it.

That's what's disingenuous.

I'll also point out that the commerce power is plenary and direct your attention to Wickard v Filburn.

Wickard v. Filburn | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Jillian, I know exactly what the Commerce Clause was set up for, and it was never intended for something like this. IMO it would give sweeping powers to our federal government. You or nobody else will change my mind on that.
I keep saying that I don't trust my government, and this is a great point for my reasoning.
__________________

 

[SniperFire]

wow, hostility from the right, who knew...

well in the eyes of the law corporations are treated the same as people. remember the famous Romney line, "well corporations are people to."

Also, in the context of the First Amendment, Congress shall make no laws restricting the freedom of speech among corporations or any sort of association of peoples.

Romney nailed it.

so you ignored the rest of my statement,

When you build your 'comment' on a false premise, I destroy it, making you look foolish and completely invalidating you empty rhetoric.

Deal with it.

 

[Syphon]

Also, in the context of the First Amendment, Congress shall make no laws restricting the freedom of speech among corporations or any sort of association of peoples.

Romney nailed it.

so you ignored the rest of my statement,

When you build your 'comment' on a false premise, I destroy it, making you look foolish and completely invalidating you empty rhetoric.

Deal with it.

this coming from the person who refuses to answer simple yes or no questions, because you know the answers will destroy your argument.

i guess that world of ignorance you live in really is bliss

 

[SniperFire]

wow, hostility from the right, who knew...

well in the eyes of the law corporations are treated the same as people. remember the famous Romney line, "well corporations are people to." well since the government is mandating "corporations" provide a service to customers regardless of that customers ability to pay, this sets the precedent for the government enacting a mandate on people.

'Government' enacts all sorts of mandate on people. You can't drive 135 miles down the highway, or example.

The issue here is whether or not the Federal government has broad, new powers to force a person to participate in commerce to regulate commerce.

You suck at this sort of thing.

Except that the government isn't forcing them to participate in commerce.

They are trying to, but the Supremes will toss it as being unconstitutional. Changes the entire relationship between the individual and government, you know.

 

[SniperFire]

so you ignored the rest of my statement,

When you build your 'comment' on a false premise, I destroy it, making you look foolish and completely invalidating you empty rhetoric.

Deal with it.

this coming from the person who refuses to answer simple yes or no questions

Are you trying to argue that the New York Times Corporation can be silenced by Congress because they are a 'corporation'?

I love to destroy libs on this one! Let's roll. LOL

 

[dblack]

Except that the government isn't forcing them to participate in commerce. They're already in the market now, they're just choosing to pay for any potential injuries out of pocket.

And we simply can't have that. The insurance industry won't stand for it!