Obamacare Going Down?

Lol at RVG being "Dad" in this thread. Teach me more life lessons, Jedi master.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...dable-care-act

Found an interesting article, Professor at Harvard Law School claims that several mandates authorized by Founding Fathers in the early Congressional sessions supports the notion that the health care mandate falls under the scope of the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Their rates aren't that much lower than anyone else. In my case, a 23-year-old with an RX-8 (which I got used, for cash--good deal), the rates are about the same. That said, USAA is one of the few banks I trust not to screw me over with debit card fees--they re-fund all the pithy little $2 ATM fees from using non-USAA ATMs each month, which is awesome.

---

The RX-8 is, I think, a moderately capable mid-range sports coupé. 23 year old men as a group have a documented track record of wrapping such cars around trees, motorway barriers and pedestrians. Insurance is consequently high.

On the other hand, small engined Fords, for example, have low fuel consumption, decent reliability and running costs and low insurance costs even for 23 year old men. This allows the build up of no-claims bonuses (one assumes you have similar discounts in the US) so eventually, one has enough discount to afford to drive a powerful car.

Perhaps if you chose a car more suited to your budget, you could afford the insurance and therefore to drive? Your argument about people being priced out of the insurance market may have some validity, but is rather undermined by your choice of car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

It was used, and contains all the modern safety features found in, say, a Nissan Versa. Its also an Automatic, and far from the most sporty version on the road. The fact that I got it cheap and used throws the budget accusation out the window, although I can absolutely understand where you're coming from.

But this isn't about me. I'm a Veteran with service-connected injuries, and eventually the VA will get off its lazy hump and process my claims. I'm more or less taken care of for life, and nobody should worry about my well-being in the long-term. Its people who don't have such a leg-up that we should worry about.

---

Fair enough (though my note about budget was meant to highlight that the cost of a car is not just the headline price, but the whole running cost - something people often forget when purchasing). Certainly insurance is a significant barrier to many on this side of the pond too, so your point stands.

It comes down to the fact that taxes are levied for nonsense all the time. So to say that a bit of a bite out of your paycheck for healthcare is any less constitutional than a federal grant for research on the sperm of autistic urban males between the ages of 35-38 is simply empty rhetoric.

As far as I'm concerned these people who never want to raise taxes or feel comprehensive health care is a death kneel have no place in society.

I just want to get to the point where we can start haggiling.

Society should follow natural laws.

And which one of the enumerable defintions would that be?

You kids need to step your game up

That statement means nothing.

Interesting historical perspective. Certainly shows that the founders faced the same quandaries and problems we do.

The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

That’s not all. In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.

Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.

So we should ensure our semen and reinstitute slavery? I'll vote for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

So we should ensure our ***** and reinstitute slavery? I'll vote for that.

---

Yes, obviously that's what I was referencing. Yawn.

Note that the Founders instituted not one but two individual mandates. Damn them for not knowing the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yes, obviously that's what I was referencing. Yawn.

Note that the Founders instituted not one but two individual mandates. Damn them for not knowing the constitution.

---

I thought so. People refer to the the founders when it's convenient to their arguments; however, they're irrelevant to this case. The issue involved is constitutionality of the mandate, determined by the Supreme Court, not to say that it, like slavery, was done before so we should do it again.

*Record for most commas in one sentence. And put back my semen!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

People refer to the the founders when it's convenient to their arguments; however, they're irrelevant to this case. The issue involved is constitutionality of the mandate, determined by the Supreme Court

---

Right, because I was saying IT HAS BEEN AND MUST BE SO AGAIN, clearly that was my argument, I was not making a historical note. And clearly precedent and history have no bearing on anything, ever. Into the memory hole! Begone, pesky history!

I read something about that a couple weeks ago

My friend, Harvard law professor Einer Elhauge, has an essay in the New Republic, If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?, in which he breathlessly recycles the same two supposed precedents for economic mandates under the Commerce Clause that have been much discussed over the past two years. The first is the requirement that ship owners provide insurance for their sailors. While navigation laws such as this one were an exercise of the commerce power, it is a garden variety regulation of how commerce, in this case the activity of shipping, is to be conducted. To be subjected to this regulation, you first have to engage in the commercial activity of shipping, or what was called, “the carrying trade.” The fact that this particular regulation required ship owners to provide insurance does not distinguish it from, say, regulations providing for life preservers or life boats (which also have to be purchased!).

The second is the well-trod example of the Militia Act that requires persons to provide their own weapons. Of course, this was an exercise of Congress’s militia power, and the militia duty traditionally required members to provide their own weapons. Contrary to Elhauge’s characterization of this as a “purchase mandate,” guns could be gifts or borrowed or inherited. There was no requirement that they be purchased. Challengers to the mandate have never denied that Congress has the power to require persons to do things. I have long listed the draft, jury duty, the filing of a tax return, and service on a posse, as examples of fundamental duties of citizenship that are owed to the government in return to the protection it affords to citizens. This is all explained in my 2010 article, Commandeering the People: Why the Individual Insurance Mandate is Unconstitutional. But just because the federal government has the power to make you fight and die for your country does not entail that it has the totalitarian power to make you do anything less than this.

Every court that has considered the constitutionality of the insurance mandate, including those judges that upheld its constitutionality, have concluded that this mandate is unprecedented. The fact that these two examples have been so well discussed, debunked, and rejected explains why the Solicitor General cited neither in his oral argument when Justice Kennedy characterized this Commerce Clause mandate as unprecedented. Indeed, the fact that, over two years into this debate, these are the only supposed examples of such mandates on offer by defenders of the Affordable Care Act strongly supports, rather than detracts from, the claim that such mandates are unprecedented. One reason why supporters of the mandate were so surprised by the apparent skepticism of some of the Justices towards this claim of Congressional power may simply be that they are not all that familiar with the constitutional arguments that have actually been made by the challengers in their briefs or the analysis presented in the opinions of lower court judges.

http://volokh.com/2012/04/13/still-u...omic-mandates/

http://volokh.com/2012/04/13/58696/

http://volokh.com/2012/04/14/einer-elhauge-replies/


Though honestly I didn't find it interesting enough to do more than skim :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The fact that these two examples have been so well discussed, debunked, and rejected explains why the Solicitor General cited neither in his oral argument when Justice Kennedy characterized this Commerce Clause mandate as unprecedented.

---

That's a strange assertion. The "thoroughly debunked," in particular, is odd, given that the Harvard law prof published on April 13th of this year (four whole days ago!), filed an amicus brief in favor of Obamacare, and responses (such as Volokh) are all quite recent.

A slightly less dismissive take from yet another blogger, including a response to the blogger you cite three times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Interesting historical perspective. Certainly shows that the founders faced the same quandaries and problems we do.

---

-cries- no one reads my posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

-cries- no one reads my posts.

---

Too busy throwing darts at your avitar. ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I thought so. People refer to the the founders when it's convenient to their arguments; however, they're irrelevant to this case. The issue involved is constitutionality of the mandate, determined by the Supreme Court, not to say that it, like slavery, was done before so we should do it again.

*Record for most commas in one sentence. And put back my semen!

---

I'll agree Obamas mandates are the incestous result of the need to deliver on a promise and the lack of fortitude to stand his ground on anything meaningful

So I say scrap it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

And which one of the enumerable defintions would that be?

You kids need to step your game up

That statement means nothing.

---

Any statement can be interpreted to be meaningless. If you choose to interpret it as so.


I wasn't making an argument, just making a statement.


But if you're curious to know what I meant, which I doubt you are but oh well, let me list some basic tenants.


1. Government should not make decisions for you about lifestyle, religion or faith, or choose your occupation.

2. In addition to that, the government should not tell you what to do with your resources. (Aside from taxes.) I can't withhold a percentage of my taxes for opposing the war can I? I don't want Obamacare. I can't opt out can I? The government should not and can't require me to participate. (Ethically that is. But literally they can, of course.)

If the bill allowed people to opt out I'd be fine with it. Even if that means I have no healthcare because I do not want healthcare. If we were going to establish National healthcare why not add it to the taxes? Every other nation with a similar plan have free healthcare paid for by way of taxes. At least that way it could be adjusted more fairly.

3. A person should not be required to live in debt by law and decisions they didn't make. We can't all borrow money from China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That's a strange assertion. The "thoroughly debunked," in particular, is odd, given that the Harvard law prof published on April 13th of this year (four whole days ago!), filed an amicus brief in favor of Obamacare, and responses (such as Volokh) are all quite recent.

A slightly less dismissive take from yet another blogger, including a response to the blogger you cite three times.

---

uh, his says that because apparently these examples have been discussed for years, that's why he thinks it's silly that they are still being put forward. Also I linked to two people and one of them is quoting the response you link me to and responding to it. Anyway, I haven't done more than skim them I was just quoting them in case anyone was interested. But they don't seem to be simply dismissive to me.

acin I feel your pain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

acin I feel your pain.

---

https://i.imgur.com/7zBr2.jpg

So I guess Obamacare passed its first judicial review. I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention, very busy day, but I checked here to see what was up:

A Children's Treasury of Wingnut Obamacare Freakouts

I don't think I've seen reactions this amusingly over-the-top since Governor Walker survived his recall. AMERICAN DEMOCRACY KEEPS DYING!

That link is awesome. I love the idea of people moving to Canada to escape socialized medicine. That's just delightfully funny.

Ah yes, Canada. The last true bastion of free market capitalism. Let freedom ring!

I think this calls for another rousing rendition of the Canadian National Anthem. All rise.


Listen Here


Brings a tear to me eye. God Bless Canada, our special cousin to the North.

If they want free market health care move to China.

No need - China is moving to the US ~;)

I love it when people have epic overractions. Apparently today is the day a lot of insurance plans are required to cover contraception. A politician pretty much goes Godwin.

Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly (R), an ardent opponent of abortion rights, said that today's date would live in infamy alongside those two other historic occasions. Wednesday marked the day on which a controversial new requirement by the Department of Health and Human Services, which requires health insurance companies to cover contraceptive services for women, goes into effect.

"I know in your mind you can think of times when America was attacked. One is December 7th, that's Pearl Harbor day. The other is September 11th, and that's the day of the terrorist attack," Kelly said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. "I want you to remember August the 1st, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom. That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I don't understand.. why would you be against this? Contraception is dirt cheap, and there's no real downside to this kind of voluntary population control.

---

Not true. Morlocks gotta eat.

Is the government making people take contraceptives based on their religious choices? No.

So that statement made by the politician was pure incorrect hyperbole.

From what I understand of the situation:
The government is making health care companies provide contraception regardless of the religious choices of the company. Essentially it is mandating that health care companies cannot discriminate against individuals. So its more along the lines of allowing people of whatever colour to sit anywhere in a bus or eat at a restaurant.

All people regardless of creed should be treated equally. This means equal laws for all people and corporations. The government should not be hand picking laws to apply for against corporations based on the beliefs of the corporations operators, that would be discrimination and potentially supporting one religion above others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I don't understand.. why would you be against this? Contraception is dirt cheap, and there's no real downside to this kind of voluntary population control.

Silly fundies, always freaking out when good things happen.

---

Sometimes I honestly think religious fundies on the right want poor people to remain poor by ensuring they have too many kids, which makes more poor kids who have poor kids, and baboom we have our perpetual underclass who will work for mimimum wage and whom we can frame for our rapist frat boy son.

Can't have rich without poor