Majority of States Now Challenging Health Care Law

[Bricker]

@joemama24_98

I saw it and understand it. But my argument is more on the merits. So sure, challenge the legality of the federal mandate - maybe there is a case there. But I don’t believe any of the AGs or states challenging this really give a crap about state rights - its nothing more than a political statement.

I don’t know what you base this belief on. The issue of limited federal government is a cause celebre for many conservatives.

[joemama24_98]

@Bricker

I don’t know what you base this belief on. The issue of limited federal government is a cause celebre for many conservatives.

So why not seek to amend the law to remove that provision? Or even better, participate in the process to come up with a plan. I’ve heard so many conservatives agree that healthcare needs reform (and the polls show the majority of Americans do as well).

I’d be more inclined to believe there was concern for states rights if not all the false rhetoric about “death panels”, forced rationing, etc. If the Republicans can come up with any plan to actually address the issues I would support it and thank them for it.

And no, Magellan, in this particular case I am not terribly concerned about precedent, as I believe the bill, as written, is constitutional. I suppose the courts will decide that for us. But I do firmly believe that something needs to be done at the federal level to address the systemic issues in our health care system, which is slowly bankrupting the entire country.

[Bricker]

@joemama24_98

So why not seek to amend the law to remove that provision? Or even better, participate in the process to come up with a plan. I’ve heard so many conservatives agree that healthcare needs reform (and the polls show the majority of Americans do as well).

I imagine because state AGs and governors have no bility to amend Congressional legislation, and because the effect of their win would simply be to eliminate that provision anyway.

[joemama24_98]

@Bricker

I imagine because state AGs and governors have no bility to amend Congressional legislation, and because the effect of their win would simply be to eliminate that provision anyway.

I was not speaking of the AGs specifically, but perhaps should have given the OP. Since this thread is not about the merits of the legislation per se I won’t comment any more on it.

[Nars_Glinley]

@joemama24_98

Florida. And I misspoke. You need insurance to obtain (and maintain) a license plate and tag, not a drivers license. But the effect on most people is the same - no insurance, no ability to drive your own car (legally)

When I lived in Texas, the requirement to get a driver’s license was that you had to provide proof of insurance for every vehicle that you owned.

[magellan01]

@joemama24_98

So why not seek to amend the law to remove that provision? Or even better, participate in the process to come up with a plan. I’ve heard so many conservatives agree that healthcare needs reform (and the polls show the majority of Americans do as well).

I’d be more inclined to believe there was concern for states rights if not all the false rhetoric about “death panels”, forced rationing, etc. If the Republicans can come up with any plan to actually address the issues I would support it and thank them for it.

And no, Magellan, in this particular case I am not terribly concerned about precedent, as I believe the bill, as written, is constitutional. I suppose the courts will decide that for us. But I do firmly believe that something needs to be done at the federal level to address the systemic issues in our health care system, which is slowly bankrupting the entire country.

Well, even if a state AG could amend federal legislation, there’s the problem that the mandate was said to be the lynchpin of the entire bill. That without it, none of the numbers worked at all. That is why it was kept in there in light of great push-back. Take it out and Obamacare would never have even made it to a vote.

As far as fearing having this become precedent for what the government can do, we differ greatly. The last thing we need is another mechanism for the government to be able to spend the money in our pockets.

[magellan01]

@Nars_Glinley

When I lived in Texas, the requirement to get a driver’s license was that you had to provide proof of insurance for every vehicle that you owned.

I don’t think that’s exactly right. I think when I lived there it was fro every vehicle that is registered to be on the road. So, you could own an old Packard and just look at it, but if you wanted to drive it, it had to be insured. I think that you were/are able to drive an uninsured vehicle, and not even register it, if it were to be driven only on your own property. Like some use Texas mega-ranch.

[Dick_Dastardly]

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798
by Rick Ungar

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed -“An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.
Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.
And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.
Here’s how it happened.
During the early years of our union, the nation’s leaders realized that foreign trade would be essential to the young country’s ability to create a viable economy. To make it work, they relied on the nation’s private merchant ships – and the sailors that made them go – to be the instruments of this trade.
The problem was that a merchant mariner’s job was a difficult and dangerous undertaking in those days. Sailors were constantly hurting themselves, picking up weird tropical diseases, etc.
The troublesome reductions in manpower caused by back strains, twisted ankles and strange diseases often left a ship’s captain without enough sailors to get underway – a problem both bad for business and a strain on the nation’s economy.
But those were the days when members of Congress still used their collective heads to solve problems – not create them.

[Marley23]

Dick Dastardly, if you quote from a blog or news article, please use a judiciously short quote and not the entire piece. (Please also make it clearer that you are quoting someone else’s argument. You included a link, but only at the bottom of the post.

[MemoryLeak]

@Dick_Dastardly

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

I read the Act and my first reaction was that it doesn’t quite say what Ungar says it does. It levies a $0.20/sailor/month “tax” on the employer which the employer is authorized (but not required) to deduct from the sailor’s wage. Undoubtedly the ship owner’s avarice resulted in the deduction.

What I find striking is the desperate casting around for some example of the government forcing private citizens to buy something (such as this act from 1798; the “my state requires insurance to get a driver’s license” - oh sorry, that’s for car tags, but it’s the same thing; if you buy a house you need to buy flood insurance; I’m sure there are more misunderstandings/misstatements to come).

Note that I recognize Ungar is saying things in addition to the mandate to purchase.

[Leaper]

Two new items:

1. Florida judge rules against individual mandate. (Don’t be fooled by the implications of the headline and such, which IMO makes it sound more sweeping than it is.)

2. Salon writer argues that the Supreme Court overturning this law would set precedent to dismantle everything from the New Deal. (Hmm, that last may be worthy of its own thread…)

[Leaper]

To add: another link from the Atlantic that downplays today’s ruling.

It also says that a sign that Scalia and Thomas have already made up their minds about this is MUCH more significant, but I can’t see how it tells us anything most people didn’t already know.

[Bricker]

@Leaper

To add: another link from the Atlantic that downplays today’s ruling.

It also says that a sign that Scalia and Thomas have already made up their minds about this is MUCH more significant, but I can’t see how it tells us anything most people didn’t already know.

From that link:

Progressives supporters of the measure, meanwhile, will fret, not just because the judge’s order creates further legal dissonance about the Act (most of the federal judges who have looked at the law have declared it valid, two have not) but because the judge’s language will almost certainly add fuel to the political fire raging all across the country.

I’m pretty certain that’s a lie. I think that two judges have upheld it and two have struck it down, making it a tie. Am I wrong?

And if I’m right, notice how the author says “most” of the judges, without giving a number; he implies that the vast weight of the judging is on the side of upholding the law without saying it. And even if I’m wrong, I’m certain that the number is not so lopsided as to justify that sentence.

So – what can we conclude about the commitment to neutral, unbiased reporting of this author?

[Leaper]

I’ve seen quotes about “18 to 2” in blog comments. I don’t know where that comes from, but it could be the source of what you’re talking about.

[Bricker]

@Leaper

I’ve seen quotes about “18 to 2” in blog comments. I don’t know where that comes from, but it could be the source of what you’re talking about.

Well, I’ll certainly concede if there are 18 decisions upholding the measure, then the sentence is certainly justified and I’ll withdraw my attack and apologize for the slur to the author’s integrity.

But… I don’t think that there are 18 decisions. Or even 8.

[Leaper]

Well, like I said, I have no idea where it comes from. I’ve just seen it. If the writer believes it (or believes in the interpretation that led to it), then it would certainly explain where those quotes of yours come from, regardless of whether the interpretation is actually true/reasonable.

[Bricker]

@Leaper

Well, like I said, I have no idea where it comes from. I’ve just seen it. If the writer believes it (or believes in the interpretation that led to it), then it would certainly explain where those quotes of yours come from, regardless of whether the interpretation is actually true/reasonable.

“Explain,” in a sense. But if someone were to write an article like that and rely on uncited blog entries for a claim that was so central to his thesis, I don’t know that such approach would be much better than simply making it up.

[villa]

@Leaper

2. Salon writer argues that the Supreme Court overturning this law would set precedent to dismantle everything from the New Deal. (Hmm, that last may be worthy of its own thread…)

It’s certainly been part of the discussion. It’s why, in my opinion, if the Court rules this unconstitutional, it will do it in a very circumspect way. Overruling Wickard isn’t on the cards, because it would destroy so much other jurisprudence, and the fall out from that would be too huge. The Court is, at heart, a political body. It realizes it has power only as long as it is backed by the democratic branches. And the perils of destroying so much are too great.

[Fear_Itself]

Roberts and Alito both signed off on the"Necessary and Proper" clause in US v. Comstock, so they would be hard pressed not to support it here:

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion, but several of the conservatives the Obama administration needs to win over on the healthcare law joined it, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito. The decision hinges upon the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to enact laws that carry out its legislative mandate.

Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the power to imprison sex criminals; the words don’t even appear in the document. But Breyer ruled — with Roberts signing off on “every comma and sentence,” Eskridge notes — that the Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to enact such laws as long as they are “rationally related to a constitutionally enumerated power.” Stripped to its essence,* Comstock* says as long as the goal is to further one of the powers given Congress, the law is probably OK. And since Roberts joined the majority, Eskridge said, he probably assigned the case to archliberal Breyer.

[E-Sabbath]

Hey, Bricker? As I understand it, the Florida judge heard no arguments, just tossed out the entire bill. If I understand this right, and I may not, didn’t he have to assume that all claims the defense made were factual in that case? Specifically, didn’t he have to toss it out as a matter of fact, rather than law? Or am I thinking of something else?

What makes me curious about this is the entire ‘toss out the whole law without hearing arguments’ thing.

Can his actions cause this suit to get tossed out? Say, the next court up decides he was incorrect on his decision to rule in such a manner, what happens next?