Obamacare, Healthcare, etc.

**Milkster** · 2012-03-27 10:48

So, exactly what is the probably with Obamacare? Why is it such a bad thing?

**Dimmauk** · 2012-03-27 11:07

How can those Jesus freak Republicans say they are against universal health care and also be against abortion? Because the other party wants it? Very childish.

**Gwynplaine** · 2012-03-27 11:10

Originally Posted by Milkster

So, exactly what is the probably with Obamacare? Why is it such a bad thing?

Because if it stands then it sets a very radical new precedent in theory that there's no specific limit to where government can require a person by law to take actions under the Commerce Clause. Either your life belongs to you or it doesn't. Either you're free to practice the profession of your choice or you aren't. In the case of being a doctor you owe your knowledge, expertise, time, and life to other people by law.

The Commerce Clause exists as a protection from individual states from setting up tariffs and barriers that favor their own industry etc. Which was common during that time period. However it's been totally twisted around to be used for the exact opposite purpose, and to justify just about any increase in power imaginable. Instead of pertaining to preventing trade barriers, statists use it to mean that the government has the power to make laws over anything vaguely dealing with trade and economics. Well not buying health insurance impacts domestic commerce you see, therefore we can force the nation to buy it.

So the question is: does the law recognize any limit to the use of government power to make such laws, or doesn't it?

**Gwynplaine** · 2012-03-27 11:13

Originally Posted by Dimmauk

How can those Jesus freak Republicans say they are against universal health care and also be against abortion? Because the other party wants it? Very childish.

Well they can't. The pope and the Catholic church have been advocates of universal health care for years. And so they are getting what they asked for.

They don't disagree with it in essence, they just want THEIR version of universal health care where they get to disallow abortion and euthanasia and condemn sex etc.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/sto...ns/1004736.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caritas_in_Veritate

Bill O'Reilly on your side? It's more likely than you might think.

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-03-27 11:14

Originally Posted by Gwynplaine

So the question is: does the law recognize any limit to the use of government power to make such laws, or doesn't it?

No, the question is "does the law recognize this specific instance of government power to make such laws, or doesn't it?"

Just because this passes, doesn't mean that the government can necessarily make the same law relating to the purchase of ice cream. Weighing the benefit to society is going to be a major part of the balance between government overreach or not.

**Gwynplaine** · 2012-03-27 11:16

Today's arguments on the individual mandate ended so the audio should be up soon.

**SwampdonkeyPLD** · 2012-03-27 12:05

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

No, the question is "does the law recognize this specific instance of government power to make such laws, or doesn't it?"

Just because this passes, doesn't mean that the government can necessarily make the same law relating to the purchase of ice cream. Weighing the benefit to society is going to be a major part of the balance between government overreach or not.

If this is constitutional, what's to stop the government from forcing you to buy ice cream? You must be expecting the Justices to say something like "we limit this holding to these facts". There's no way that's what the ruling will be.

And after Kelo, I'm not sure the court would be persuaded by speculative "benefits to society".

Edit: Here's where the audio will be http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ent_audio.aspx

Edit2: I guess you could say the ballot box is a limit. Can't wait to see what the acting SG said.

**Gwynplaine** · 2012-03-27 12:20

The SCOTUS blog is being barraged and barely loads. For now here's some more media commentary to check out.

Not surprisingly, everyone is guessing how the justices are going to come down with Kennedy being the wildcard decision.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...pid-reactions/

“Kennedy was really tough on the government,” she said, but agreed that Kennedy was equally tough on the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Paul Clement. I asked her if she could predict where Kennedy would come out—she said she just couldn’t be sure. Basically, in her mind, Kennedy’s vote was 50-50.

and
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/03/27/...ogle_news_blog

Trying to predict outcomes of Supreme Court cases based on their oral arguments is a difficult game. Too often cases that appear to go one way during oral argument end up going the other way come June.

Still, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s comment Tuesday morning during the arguments at the heart of the health-care case have to leave the government — and the Obama administration — a little worried.

According to the early WSJ reports out of the courtroom, Justice Kennedy, largely viewed as the swing vote in the case. said Tuesday the government has a “very heavy burden of justification” to show where the Constitution authorizes the Congress to change the relation of individuals to the government.

While Jeff Toobin on CNN seems pesimistic
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...ck-118811.html

"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it's going to be struck down," Toobin said on CNN. "All of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong."

"The only conservative justice who looked like he might uphold the law was Chief Justice Roberts who asked hard questions of both sides, all four liberal justices tried as hard as they could to make the arguments in favor of the law, but they were -- they did not meet with their success with their colleagues," Toobin said.

In any case it's a guessing game until June.

**Headspace** · 2012-03-27 12:43

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...triots.html?45

**Gwynplaine** · 2012-03-27 12:47

Audio is posted now:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...11-398-Tuesday

2 hours long, but come on, you can take a break from your Kesha's and your Beatles. Do it for Society.

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-03-27 12:58

It'll be interesting if this gets struck down, and after a few more years of rising costs pricing more and more people out of private health insurance, we end up with higher taxes to support a proper universal health care system.

Demosthenes11 · 2012-03-27 13:10

I find it ironic that the masses call obamacare mandate "socialism" but what the SC is deciding is whether it is too fascist (mandate by the head of state)

**Dantrag** · 2012-03-27 13:11

If the mandate is in God's name, then it's not fascist or socialist or any -ist. It's Amurican.

**SwampdonkeyPLD** · 2012-03-27 13:55

Originally Posted by Demosthenes11

I find it ironic that the masses call obamacare mandate "socialism" but what the SC is deciding is whether it is too fascist (mandate by the head of state)

How is a mandate passed by Congress a mandate by head of state?

**Dimmauk** · 2012-03-27 13:59

Originally Posted by SwampdonkeyPLD

How is a mandate passed by Congress a mandate by head of state?

Cause it's called Obamacare, it's named after the head of state so it's his fault.

**kuronosan** · 2012-03-27 14:37

Calling it Obamacare makes it easier for people to rally against it if they hate Obama. Pure and simple.

Demosthenes11 · 2012-03-27 15:00

I didn't say it made sense.

**Gwynplaine** · 2012-03-27 15:06

JUSTICE
BREYER: And the same with the computers, or the same with the -- the cell phones, if you're driving by the side of the highway and there is a federal emergency service just as you say you have to buy certain mufflers for your car that don't hurt the environment, you could -- I mean, see, doesn't it depend on the situation?

GENERAL VERRILLI: It does, Justice Breyer, and if Congress were to enact laws like that, we -

JUSTICE BREYER: Would be up here defending it -

GENERAL VERRILLI: It would be my responsibility to then defend them, and I would defend them on a rationale like that, but I do think that we are advancing a narrower rationale.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, then your question is whether or not there are any limits on the Commerce Clause. Can you identify for us some limits on the Commerce Clause?

GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes. The -- the rationale purely under the Commerce Clause that we're advocating here would not justify forced purchases of commodities for the purpose of stimulating demand.

Some interesting bits.

Demosthenes11 · 2012-03-27 15:21

ya, I love arguments with no rational behind it.

"You know those cars that are small? ya you could die in them"

so interesting

**SwampdonkeyPLD** · 2012-03-27 15:33

Originally Posted by Gwynplaine

Some interesting bits.

Did the SG answer with any other limits? That last sentence is hardly a limit.

Thread: Obamacare, Healthcare, etc.

Thread Tools

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads