General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOK, I'll bite. *WHY* would it be unprecedented for SCOTUS to overturn Affordable Health Care?
Not to be a monkey or anything, but...
SCOTUS has overturned laws before...why would this be unprecedented?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
mdmc
(29,070 posts)
sinkingfeeling
(51,466 posts)
DJ13
(23,671 posts)As commerce is regulated by the Congress, not the USSC, it would be considered unprecedented.
However, theres also the question of whether the "commerce clause" allows the Federal government to mandate the forced purchase of a private product, which is a different subject, and one that is in the interest of the USSC.
The sad part is that its now our party that has to defend a Republican idea in the Supreme Court.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The mandate on health insurance is how healthcare is being regulated.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)their own money on health insurance from a private company?
Can the government force everyone to put their money in a bank under the guise of "regulating" the banking industry?
Can the government force everyone to invest under the guise of "regulating" wall street?
I guess the question really is, can congress "regulate" your after-tax income under the commerce clause?
Your after-tax income can't be spent buying certain products or services. Additionally, the government can require you to pay fees, attend classes or otherwise get licensed before doing certain other activities, and that comes from your after-tax income. Some claim that this is OK because you can just 'opt-out' of the regulated activities.
Fact is even if you don't want insurance, you will require healthcare. It is not possible to 'opt-out' of healthcare. So being 'forced' to pay for it via insurance shouldn't be a problem just like being forced to buy a dog license (which requires spending after-tax income at a privately-owned vet clinic) isn't a problem.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)
But saying I WILL require healthcare isn't really a rational for buying health insurance. Saying I WILL require healthcare I CANT AFFORD might be a justification for forcing everyone to buy it, but it's not guaranteed that it will be the case. If you look at the number of people who have to declare medical bankruptcies that HAVE health insurance, paying in isn't a guarantee that my healthcare will be sufficiently covered anyway. It is forcing people into a system for the sole purpose of making the industry more financially stable under the guise of calling it "prudent planning for an inevitability", but it's NOT an inevitability that you will require health care you can't pay for nor is it any kind of guarantee that it will cover your costs even if used as intended.
You can polish this up all you want, but you end up having to argue that the government has essentially limitless constitutional authority to tell you how to spend your own money, while it props up for-profit insurance companies at taxpayer expense.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Eventually, you will require healthcare that is far more costly than anyone except the super-rich can pay.
Of course, we created Medicare to cover the vast majority of those cases.
If you look at the number of people who have to declare medical bankruptcies that HAVE health insurance, paying in isn't a guarantee that my healthcare will be sufficiently covered anyway.
It should be noted that many of the causes of so many medical bankruptcies while insured are fixed by the ACA (lifetime caps, pre-existing conditions not covered, and so on).
Actually no. It's a path to single-payer. That's a big part of why the Republicans want to kill it, despite the gobs of cash the insurance cartel will receive from it.
1) Exchanges get set up.
2) Private insurance companies screw people over.
3) Public options are added to many exchanges in blue states, in order to keep the insurance companies honest.
4) Poorly-indexed "Cadillac Tax" kicks in, and removes the financial incentives for businesses to provide insurance. So they stop doing so, putting more people into the exchanges. This greatly increases the probability of 2 and thus 3 happens in less-blue states.
5) People on the public option don't fall over dead. They also pay less because that public option is not-for-profit. That gets more people onto the plan, reducing costs even further. This sells the public option to the particularly "red" states.
6) De-facto single-payer.
It's a Rube Goldberg contraption, to be sure. But it will get the job done and none of the steps are particularly unlikely.
You can polish this up all you want, but you end up having to argue that the government has essentially limitless constitutional authority to tell you how to spend your own money
The government already has essentially limitless constitutional authority to tell you that you can't spend your money on certain goods or services. The government already has essentially limitless constitutional authority to require insurance in all sorts of other cases, such as auto insurance. And while some pretend there's a fig leaf of "just don't buy a car", government has created development policies and public transportation policies that make that virtually impossible for most Americans.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)The states can, just like the states can mandate health insurance in EXACTLY the same way the federal government is trying to (I know, I live in MA), but there are many things that the states are permitted to do that the federal government can not (or at least there was is in the constitution).
As far as EVERYONE but the "Warren Buffets" requiring health coverage that they can't afford, that's not true, and I think you know it. I'm not saying it's a majority of people, but I don't believe it's an insignificant number either.
And most importantly, the fact that this is a pathway to single payer is great, I'm all for that, but it in NO WAY has any bearing on whether this is constitutional or not.
I know giving the government completely control over everyone's bank account seems like a small price to pay for single payer, but I promise you that people in power cannot be trusted with this sort of power, especially when the corporations that pull their strings are always looking for new and creative ways to get their hands on your money.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If the feds can't do it because of the Constitution, the states can't either.
Statistically, the last year life currently costs about $2,000,000 in medical costs. And it's going up a lot. You might get lucky and suddenly drop dead, but you also might need a couple transplants.
Well, you have expressed a lot more objections based on private insurance companies and money than objections based on the Constitution. Btw, you failed to list which clause in the Constitution explicitly forbids the ACA. (I'm saying the Commerce clause gives them the authority to do so)
They already used that power before the ACA. They already told us what we had so spend some of our money on, and already told us what we can't spend our money on. Yet you seem to be fine with me having to send money to Geico, enforced by zoning that puts work far from residences, and only 6 hours/day of bus service.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)That is not correct.
Article 10 of the Bill of Rights:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Just because the federal government doesn't have the power to do something doesn't mean the States necessarily don't.
I have argued, consistently, that the commerce clause DOES NOT give the federal government authority to do so. I would argue that NO clause gives them the authority to do so.
The constitution lists which powers the federal government DOES have, not which ones it does not (other than the bill of rights). Any federal law must be based in the constitutional authority it is granted. It is not for the constitution to outline what the federal government can't do (except for the bill of rights, which was added because some of the framers felt if you didn't outline certain basic rights, they wouldn't be guaranteed).
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Really?
And you want to try to have a Constitutional argument?
I think I'll stop wasting my time with someone so wrong.
former9thward
(32,030 posts)And you are historically wrong. The original states could and did ignore the First A at the time the Constitution was ratified. Many of the original states had official state religions for example. Eventually the SC applied the various parts of the Bill of Rights to the states. The last one was the Second A which they applied to the states less than two years ago. The Tenth A allows the states to do things the federal government can not. That is why it was put in the Constitution.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)The 10th amendment of the United States Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
the first amendment applies to the section I put in CAPS, which is where it prohibits the states from doing certain things.
The federal government can't tell states specifically how to run elections, or run state elections themselves, all they can do is determine if something a state is doing is prohibited to it BY THE CONSTITUTION. The federal government can't regulate intra-state (within the state) commerce. The federal government can't issue licenses (hunting, driving or marriage). The federal government can't set speed limits on state roads.
The state has the authority to do all of these things.
You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of what the constitution does and does not do.
onenote
(42,723 posts)Not sure if you are too young to remember or have just forgotten, but in 1973, Congress passed the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act requiring that, as a precondition to receiving federal funds, states had to post a maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour on all highways, including secondary roads that were not directly part of the interstate network. This exercise of federal legislative power was challenged as an unconstitutionally "coercive" use of the federal spending power. In Nevada v. Skinner, the 9th Circuit held that because the federal government had the authority under the commerce clause to impose the maximum speed limit on states directly, it could not be deemed to have engaged in a coercive use of the spending power. The Supreme Court denied Nevada's petition for certiorari in the case.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)I thought the federal government just threatened to withhold federal funds (which IS within their control) if the states didn't comply. The ruling, if I recall, was such that the federal government couldn't force the states to change the speed limit, but could withhold the money. The states still have the power to set the speed limits, but the federal government has the right to withhold the federal money if they don't comply. Since no state was willing to give up that money, all complied, but in the end, it's still within the state's control, if I understood the ruling correctly.
If the ruling is as you explained it, though, it would seem the Federal government did have the authority to set state speed limits, or at least impose a maximum speed. In 1995, this law (the national maximum speed limit) was repealed and the authority was returned to the states, but since the Federal government won the court case, I guess they would have the constitutional authority to do so again if they chose.
My mistake not withstanding, my general point still stands, that there are powers not specifically designated to the federal government, nor prohibited by the constitution to the states that are within the power of the states to control.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)... States cannot pass laws that directly conflict with the terms of the Constitution and its amendments, but they are free to impose additional regulations over and above what the Constitution explicitly reserves to the federal government (provided, of course, that such additional regulations do explicitly violate any of the terms of the Constitution.
onenote
(42,723 posts)Under the Supremacy Clause, the US Constitution and federal statutory law is deemed superior to state law. In some instances, state laws can co-exist with federal law if the two are not in conflict (although it also is possible that the federal government will be deemed to have "occupied the field" which means federal supplants state/local law on the subject, even when the state/local law is not in conflict with federal law. Even where the federal government has not occupied the field, the imposition of additional regulations in an area may be deemed to conflict with federal regulation where it stands as an obstacle the accomplishment of federal objectives. Thus, for example, if the federal government establishes specific standards that it wants applied uniformly on a national basis, it may be possible for state/local governments to establish rules that enforce those same standards, but any deviation from those standards would be preempted. In other instances, merely having a dual enforcement scheme might be considered at odds with the goal of the federal legislation. Preemption cases can be among the most difficult for the court to sort out and increasingly, in the absence of express statements from Congress, preemption will not be found. I worked on a preemption case that was resolved by the SCOTUS in the 1980s and while I thought we had a pretty clear cut case for finding preemption -- and the Supremes did rule in our favor -- the Court's analysis made it clear it was a lot closer question than I thought it would be.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)
progressoid
(49,992 posts)
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)the type of action the government took with ACA since 1936. Federal courts at District and Appellate levels have recognized the government's broad grant to control and affect commerce under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. For them to overturn ACA would be going against all kind of precedent - something the Supreme Court (and all other courts) are expected to follow.
onenote
(42,723 posts)The issue is whether there is precedent to support striking down this law. On that question, I suspect we will see more than one opinion expressed by the Justices of the SCOTUS.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)If you can tax me and then turn around and dictate after tax spending as well, how are we not slaves? Not only dictate that we spend on what but even disabling our ability to even be consumers telling us that our "overseers" will decide for us.
No government should be able to tax and then spend the money in our pockets in some scheme to funnel wealth to the ownership class. It is especially suicidal in an environment that will push anything that avoids actual taxes and shift the burden of society downward.
The convoluted arguments against future TeaPubliKlan mandates that tip toe around unleashing unlimited government with this and the putrid post 9/11 legislation that we've passed right along with the pukes and no "healthcare" isn't worth it because NOTHING is. Self determination is out the window, we won't even be left the ability to vote with our dwindling dollars anymore.
This law is traitorous and will be used to fuck us more than it ever helps by leaps and bounds.
KG
(28,751 posts)WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Mike Nelson
(9,961 posts)turned political when they picked Bush for President. Scalia doesn't seem familiar with law or precedent - other justices had to offer polite, discreet answers to his silly questions about vegetables. The press and clerk community is offering Roberts a carrot to uphold narrowly - we'll see how much he dislikes President Obama...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)SATIRical
(261 posts)is that is says "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"
If I don't want to do commerce in this fashion, there is nothing in there that says the gov't has the power to force me.
If I choose to engage in interstate commerce, sure, the gov't can regulate it. But it cannot force commerce and then claim it is regulating it. You can't regulate something that doesn't exist.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You never ever go to the doctor?
I can guarantee some of the things in the office came from out of state.
SATIRical
(261 posts)the federal gov't can regulate EVERYTHING, including your body. After all, it has food in it that came from another state.
Yes, the federal gov't can regulate the interaction of the doctor in buying those things from another state (or at least the entity that brought it into the state). But my interaction with my local doctor is not an interstate transaction in any way or form.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And non-efficient market sooner or later you will be in the ER. And somebody will have to pick up the tab. Either you, your insurance, or the rest of us.
We can do this with a single payer, Medicare like system, regulated. Or with an insurance System, which most be regulated or sooner or later do what it is doing, or a hybrid.
The other choice is a system collapse...ah yes...FREEDOM.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Having a baby affects the future labor market. Labor markets have effects across state lines. Everyone with a job (or without a job) has some effect on interstate commerce, somehow. So the Feds can regulate the production of future workers as needed. Remember that when the next Repug administration does this and cites the Commerce Clause and this precedent.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)On your over reach.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)The repugs are ass hats the dittoheads are stupid,the supreme court is full of shit.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)those who operate a private vehicle on public roads. No car, no mandate. Hell, don't drive the car, no mandate.
You can totally have a license and still no insurance.
Such laws only regulate freely entered into activity, no activity is compelled.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... I drive a car on public roads. In Texas, all I need is proof of financial responsibility. I can post a bond in lieu of an insurance policy, something I have considered several times, but not done yet. So I absolutely DO NOT have to buy car insurance. Your statement is false.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
Autumn
(45,120 posts)when they appointed a US President.
Anyone who thinks they won't do something because it's unprecedented is too trusting.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)time for folks to take to the streets. Let the authorities come... they will lose.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)They'll make their decision for political, rather than legal reasons.
Having said that, with the caveat that I'm not a lawyer (thank goodness), I'm not sure I see where the government can order me to buy a product from a private company. I'm open to the idea that you can get a tax deduction for having insurance, but the ACA as written is not a tax.
