Another Strike [in the courts against HealthCare Reform law]

[Duckster]

@flickster

Ok Ok, enough of this…Back to the effect of today’s ruling.

All of the GOP members of Senate have signed on to repeal. Will this ruling allow enough of the Dem members to cross over and put it out of it’s misery?

I wonder how many GOP members of Congress have publicly announced they will not accept their federal health care as federal employees, and have this verified by an objective third party.

<<<Crickets chirping>>>

[Sam_Stone]

Let’s say the Supreme court upholds this, and the individual mandate is struck down. What then? Explicitly make it a tax? If so, what about people who pay no tax now? The unemployed, stay at home moms and dads, low income people who currently pay no net tax - are they all off the hook?

If so, goodbye to any pretense of deficit neutrality. Either that, or the taxes on everyone else would have to go up.

I don’t think this law can survive if it requires Congress to go back and explicitly vote for a tax increase to pay for it.

[flickster]

@Duckster

I wonder how many GOP members of Congress have publicly announced they will not accept their federal health care as federal employees, and have this verified by an objective third party.

<<<Crickets chirping>>>

What the F difference would it make. I don’t have an issue with members of Congress receiving health benefits as part of a job related benefit package.

[John_Mace]

@Zephyurs

The Price Anderson Act is federal legislation that, in part, requires owners and operators of nuclear power plants to purchase insurance.

Would this make for a valid analogy?

Nuclear power generation falls well within the realm of interstate commerce. It’s a regulation on and interstate industry, not on the actions of private citizens.

[waterj2]

@Starving_Artist

The government has never before been able to force people to spend their private money to purchase government-mandated goods or services.

The government has done such things as far back as the Second Militia Act of 1792:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act… That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

(bolding mine)

[waterj2]

@Sam_Stone

Let’s say the Supreme court upholds this, and the individual mandate is struck down. What then? Explicitly make it a tax? If so, what about people who pay no tax now? The unemployed, stay at home moms and dads, low income people who currently pay no net tax - are they all off the hook?

If so, goodbye to any pretense of deficit neutrality. Either that, or the taxes on everyone else would have to go up.

I don’t think this law can survive if it requires Congress to go back and explicitly vote for a tax increase to pay for it.

The Massachusetts plan takes the penalty for not having insurance by eliminating someone’s personal deduction (for their state income tax). Many, probably most, of the people who pay no federal income tax would pay if they lost their personal deduction. Just rename it a deduction for being properly insured. Anyone too poor to pay income tax even then would probably be eligible for huge subsidies or Medicaid. I’ve heard that there are a few other schemes that people have proposed to prevent people from gaming the system, including one that limits enrollment times to only a month out of each year.

[Miller]

@waterj2

The government has done such things as far back as the Second Militia Act of 1792:(bolding mine)

But the Constitution specifically states that raising and maintaining an army is a power of the federal government, so I don’t think that cite really proves anything in regards to the constitutionality of the new health care laws.

[bashere]

@DragonAsh

Hey this is good news right? Clearly mandatory car insurance is also violating my rights. When can I cancel?

The federal government required you to buy car insurance? Can I get a cite?

[waterj2]

@Miller

But the Constitution specifically states that raising and maintaining an army is a power of the federal government, so I don’t think that cite really proves anything in regards to the constitutionality of the new health care laws.

Right, it’s really not much of a precedent as far as the commerce clause goes. But Starving Artist said that the federal government has never forced people to spend their own money on private goods. And I was pointing out that they have indeed done so.

1795’s “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen” is rather more on point, as it mandated that privately employed merchant seamen purchase government-provided health insurance, the cost to be deducted from their pay. Of course, that’s not exactly the same either, as it was government provided health care, not private. But the only way we’d have a perfectly clear precedent is if we’d already passed the PPACA and it had gone to the Supreme Court.

[scabpicker]

@flickster

Ok Ok, enough of this…Back to the effect of today’s ruling.

All of the GOP members of Senate have signed on to repeal. Will this ruling allow enough of the Dem members to cross over and put it out of it’s misery?

If not, do they continue to stick their heads in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong and hope for a favorable decision from the Supremes? thereby taking the chance that the entire bill blows up in their face.

Do they instead be proactive and try to pull it back and refashion some type of plan that will be acceptable/Constitutional?

Repealing the current law before modifying existing law isn’t necessary. I am sure they’d get enough votes if the legislation fixed the problem, instead of merely rolling it back. (It’d help if the effort was actually done in good faith to help the uninsured, too)

[Starving_Artist]

@waterj2

Right, it’s really not much of a precedent as far as the commerce clause goes. But Starving Artist said that the federal government has never forced people to spend their own money on private goods. And I was pointing out that they have indeed done so.

1795’s “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen” is rather more on point, as it mandated that privately employed merchant seamen purchase government-provided health insurance, the cost to be deducted from their pay. Of course, that’s not exactly the same either, as it was government provided health care, not private. But the only way we’d have a perfectly clear precedent is if we’d already passed the PPACA and it had gone to the Supreme Court.

Ah, forget it. If you want to pretend that this little bit of hairsplitting has won you the day, knock yourself out.

[Sam_Stone]

@waterj2

The Massachusetts plan takes the penalty for not having insurance by eliminating someone’s personal deduction (for their state income tax). Many, probably most, of the people who pay no federal income tax would pay if they lost their personal deduction. Just rename it a deduction for being properly insured. Anyone too poor to pay income tax even then would probably be eligible for huge subsidies or Medicaid. I’ve heard that there are a few other schemes that people have proposed to prevent people from gaming the system, including one that limits enrollment times to only a month out of each year.

Yeah, I think you could cook up a scheme that would split some constitutional hairs. But would the people stand for it? The health care bill is already unpopular: I can’t imagine the Congress actually voting for an amendment that explicitly raises the taxes of the poorest people in society, even with the promise of some future offsetting benefits.

But you know, if you have to have public health care and you have to raise taxes to do it, a sales tax would really be the way to go. Every country that has public health care also has a national sales tax, as far as I know.

A sales tax avoids the mess of trying to figure out who gets tax credits without people gaming the system. The size of the tax can be raised or lowered rather easily as economic conditions warrant.

[Leaper]

@Sam_Stone

But would the people stand for it? The health care bill is already unpopular

But as has been pointed out many times in the past, this statement is true (for certain values of “unpopular”), but you’re using it in a misleading way, IMO, assuming/implying/using it as if they all dislike it for the same reasons, when it’s been demonstrated by poll after poll that this is not the case. In fact, there are very diametrically opposing opinions involved here. Do you acknowledge the complexity behind this seemingly simple statement?

[Evil_Captor]

Well of course if owning an auto is a choice, so is health care insurance. Don’t want to purchase health care insurance? Kill yourself! Life is a choice, too. You are not REQUIRED to live, hence you are not REQUIRED to purchase health insurance. So the analogy is in fact EXACTLY like auto insurance.

[waterj2]

@Starving_Artist

Ah, forget it. If you want to pretend that this little bit of hairsplitting has won you the day, knock yourself out.

I was just correcting an incorrect statement you made. It’s not particularly relevant to the legal discussion of the PPACA, but if you don’t want to be nitpicked, you’re posting on the wrong message board. Personally, I think it hints that the Founders didn’t see any particular difference between mandating that people purchase things on their own and doing so through the government. Whether this can be justified by the Commerce Clause is a bit larger question, which I’m not delving into at the moment.

[MemoryLeak]

@waterj2

Right, it’s really not much of a precedent as far as the commerce clause goes. But Starving Artist said that the federal government has never forced people to spend their own money on private goods. And I was pointing out that they have indeed done so.

1795’s “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen” is rather more on point, as it mandated that privately employed merchant seamen purchase government-provided health insurance, the cost to be deducted from their pay. Of course, that’s not exactly the same either, as it was government provided health care, not private. But the only way we’d have a perfectly clear precedent is if we’d already passed the PPACA and it had gone to the Supreme Court.

Well, that’s not what it said, is it?

[QUOTE=An act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen.]
…the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States, and shall pay, to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed ; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.
[/QUOTE]
bolding mine

But the fact that it’s not quite the same doesn’t really matter since (for those with no reading comprehension) it serves as an example of the government forcing private citizens to purchase health insurance.

[DragonAsh]

Clearly, I needed to add something after my post. No one noticed the giant whooshing sound overhead…

[Mr_Downtown]

@waterj2

that’s not exactly the same either, as [the 1795 act] was government provided health care, not private.

“Not exactly the same” is a bit of an understatement, as that’s the very heart of the matter. Congress has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, so something like Medicare-for-all would be no problem. What it doesn’t have is a general police power to compel citizens to purchase something in the private market.

[Steve_MB]

@Gangster_Octopus

The federal government makes you buy social security

No, it doesn’t. If you don’t have a taxable income, you don’t have to pay.

[Morgenstern]

I think it’s dead. If it needs revision wouldn’t it have to be revised and passed by both the House and the Senate? Didn’t the House just vote to repeal it?