# Healthcare Reform Down In Flames? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004 "2010-12-13T17:45:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/301 "2010-12-16T20:28:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The inactivity in _Wickard_ was Filburn’s presumed inactivity in buying wheat in interstate commerce because he was growing it himself. Based on that LACK of activity, Congress could regulate the growing of wheat. > [@yorick73](#): > > No. The activity was Filburn growing a product for which there was a market. The production of this product affected the price of wheat. Yes: > [@SCOTUS](#): > > But if we assume that [the wheat] is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/302 "2010-12-16T20:30:15Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I can’t think of one thing that the government cannot claim is somehow linked to commerce… That’s why I wrote “primary”. Apparently “somehow linked” is not enough, and that’s where the line is drawn. > [@](#): > > As I’ve pointed out this reading of the commerce clause is the polar opposite of _Wickard_. One cannot legally infer that the opposite of _Wickard_ is identical to the court ruling. People who do not have insurance simply are not engaged in commerce WRT insurance companies. I agree with you that, logically, there may be little difference but, legally, there is a world of difference. I’m not a legal scholar. Apparently the majority of legal scholars think this decision is in line with current rulings. If you want to dispute that that’s fine, and I for one hope the reach of the CC is scaled back. My only point here is about the method in which the CC (& similar such) are developed. Legal doctrines seem very appealing when they produce results that you like (& you’ll notice that people tend to adhere to legal philosophies that produce results that they like). But once you set these legal doctrines down with one result in mind, they have unintended consequences when issues that you never envisioned come to the fore. [It’s actually somewhat amusing to see conservatives and liberals changing their opinions back and forth on matters like Executive versus Legislative power, and these are about matters that change fairly frequently. The CC rulings that expanded the reach of that clause were made at times of far more limited government, when people never envisioned the gov would try to take as much control over people as it has. There were certain very specific laws that were popular and necessary at the time and it’s easier and faster to reinterpret the Constitution than to amend it, so that’s what was done. But now it’s hard to undo.] ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/303 "2010-12-16T20:31:19Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I can’t think of one thing that the government cannot claim is somehow linked to commerce…even the number of children we have or the use of birth control. If the government can regulate activity as well as inactivity then there is nowhere left to hide. We must only hope that a benevolent government will not use its powers to make us do X. That’s a scary prospect. Sound like what the health care bill needs is to include some sort of democratic process where citizens are able to voice their opinions regarding what they want the government to do. Sound radical I know, and it’s something I’m still working through. Imagine, every couple of years, maybe in late fall, we have what I call an election… ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/304 "2010-12-16T20:32:55Z")
Of course, what you wrote applies to the whole Bill of Rights … ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/305 "2010-12-16T20:41:55Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > That’s a scary prospect. Sound like what the health care bill needs is to include some sort of democratic process where citizens are able to voice their opinions regarding what they want the government to do. Sound radical I know, and it’s something I’m still working through. Imagine, every couple of years, maybe in late fall, we have what I call an election… Cute…you actually think the ability to have elections is enough? Tell that to the Germans. You might want to bone up on why we actually have a constitution as opposed to letting people decide what they want every two or four years. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/306 "2010-12-16T20:49:57Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I can’t think of one thing that the government cannot claim is somehow linked to commerce…even the number of children we have or the use of birth control. If the government can regulate activity as well as inactivity then there is nowhere left to hide. We must only hope that a benevolent government will not use its powers to make us do X. > > I think you are incorrect here. Can you point to some examples? As I’ve pointed out this reading of the commerce clause is the polar opposite of _Wickard_. One cannot legally infer that the opposite of _Wickard_ is identical to the court’s ruling in that case. \*\*People who do not have insurance simply are not engaged in commerce WRT insurance companies. \*\* I agree with you that, logically, there may be little difference but, legally, there is a world of difference. Bolding mine. I think that’s an interestingly qualified statement… “with the insurance companies”, because you sure as hell can’t say that people choose to refrain from commerce with the health care system. It’s impossible. It is a side effect of life, that you will eventually need health care. And that’s the argument you need to address - The government is regulating a portion of your (already imminent) involvement in the commerce of health care. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/307 "2010-12-16T20:57:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes: But, farmer Filburn could have chosen to not purchase wheat. He could have changed professions or let his chickens die. I realize that the effect of the ruling meant Filburn would have to purchase wheat in order to feed his chickens but he was not compelled by government to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/308 "2010-12-16T20:58:28Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > Bolding mine. I think that’s an interestingly qualified statement… “with the insurance companies”, because you sure as hell can’t say that people choose to refrain from commerce with the health care system. It’s impossible. It is a side effect of life, that you will eventually need health care. And that’s the argument you need to address - The government is regulating a portion of your (already imminent) involvement in the commerce of health care. You sure as hell can’t say that people choose to refrain from commerce with the food system. It’s impossible. It is a side effect of life, that you will eventually need to eat. Therefore the government should be able to force you to buy broccoli. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/309 "2010-12-16T20:59:05Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s why I wrote “primary”. Apparently “somehow linked” is not enough, and that’s where the line is drawn. That line is disappearing. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/310 "2010-12-16T21:01:42Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > That line is disappearing. I’m not sure because I think it was drawn for the VAWA (or possibly the school gun law). But it makes no difference. If it’s disappearing they can just reaffirm it, and uphold this law in the process. ---
**Author:** ![HRoark43](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/bc8723/32.png) [@HRoark43](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HRoark43)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/311 "2010-12-16T21:08:02Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Which brings up a weird side question: If conservatives are so generous, why are they so resistant to donating to the government (a non-profit)? Is it against the forum rules to put this line in one’s sig? Thanks for the early Christmas present, dude. All the big screen HDTV’s and gaming computers in the universe that I could ever ask Santa for on the 25th won’t compare to the good healthy lifespan-increasing laugh I had when I read this. We are resistant to being FORCED to donate to anyone. That’s the key word: FORCE. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/312 "2010-12-16T21:10:52Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m not sure because I think it was drawn for the VAWA (or possibly the school gun law). But it makes no difference. If it’s disappearing they can just reaffirm it, and uphold this law in the process. I agree with you that, over the short term, the CC has been rolled back somewhat. But the trendline since the beginning is clear. I hope you are correct. The real problem lies in the supposed flexibility, from a legal standpoint, of the commerce clause. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/313 "2010-12-16T21:19:37Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You sure as hell can’t say that people choose to refrain from commerce with the food system. It’s impossible. It is a side effect of life, that you will eventually need to eat. > > Therefore the government should be able to force you to buy broccoli. Let’s make this argument a little less silly: Since you have to eat, the government requires you to purchase a meal plan that entitles you to the minimum basic nutrition that a healthy person would require. Doesn’t sound quite as stupid now does it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/314 "2010-12-16T21:24:57Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > That’s a scary prospect. Sound like what the health care bill needs is to include some sort of democratic process where citizens are able to voice their opinions regarding what they want the government to do. Sound radical I know, and it’s something I’m still working through. Imagine, every couple of years, maybe in late fall, we have what I call an election… And then when Prop 8 passes, you sigh regretfully but acknowledge that your plan is in fact the way to do things in a democracy, and accept the results. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/315 "2010-12-16T21:28:26Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > Let’s make this argument a little less silly: Since you have to eat, the government requires you to purchase a meal plan that entitles you to the minimum basic nutrition that a healthy person would require. Doesn’t sound quite as stupid now does it? Yup…just as stupid. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/316 "2010-12-16T21:39:53Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Yup…just as stupid. So you don’t see a difference between: “The government is forcing me to buy \”. and “Since I already have to buy things of a certain nature since I have to live and all, the government is requiring that at minimum I buy this subset of things of a certain nature at a bare minimum.”? You think those are equivalent statements? edited to correct a typo. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/317 "2010-12-16T21:42:14Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > So you don’t see a difference between: “The government is forcing me to buy \”. and “Since I already have to buy things of a certain nature since I have to live and all, the government is requiring that at minimum I buy this subset of things of a certain nature at a bare minimum.”? You think those are equivalent statements? > > edited to correct a typo. Nope…no difference. I assume you are trying to make some kind of point. What, exactly, are you getting at? ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/318 "2010-12-16T21:47:35Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Nope…no difference. I assume you are trying to make some kind of point. What, exactly, are you getting at? Well since they are clearly very different statements, your ability to argue from a reasoned standpoint based in reality. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/319 "2010-12-16T21:52:25Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > Well since they are clearly very different statements, your ability to argue from a reasoned standpoint based in reality. I would argue the same for your inability to see the similarity between those two statements. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/320 "2010-12-16T21:53:16Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > Let’s make this argument a little less silly: Since you have to eat, the government requires you to purchase a meal plan that entitles you to the minimum basic nutrition that a healthy person would require. Doesn’t sound quite as stupid now does it? It sounds less intrusive in terms of actual laws. But from the perspective of the arguments being made in favor of the CC applying, they are the same. Again, in the broccoli example, do you think that - silly or not - the government could pass such a law, on the grounds that it affects interstate commerce since you have to eat anyway? If not, how does that differ from the argument being made in favor of the HC law? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004.md?page=17)