Supreme Court's Verdict on ObamaCare will be a winner- Regardless the Outcome

[HistoryNotHisStory]

If the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare, then People who cannot afford Healthcare shall receive it.


If the Supreme Court decides against ObamaCare and deem it illegal, then Social Security Insurance and Medicare is now illegal. The State of Michigan can no longer mandate that every vehicle owner maintain car insurance. I will be the first to go to court to get my refund on 30 years of payment to Social Security.


So regardless, the Republicans sending this bill to Supreme Court is a win-win situation for all.

Bye Bye mandatory Social Security tax, Medicare Tax, and Car insurance laws.

I LOVE IT!

[ghettopalmetto]

If the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare, then People who cannot afford Healthcare shall receive it.


If the Supreme Court decides against ObamaCare and deem it illegal, then Social Security Insurance and Medicare is now illegal. The State of Michigan can no longer mandate that every vehicle owner maintain car insurance. I will be the first to go to court to get my refund on 30 years of payment to Social Security.


So regardless, the Republicans sending this bill to Supreme Court is a win-win situation for all.

Bye Bye mandatory Social Security tax, Medicare Tax, and Car insurance laws.

I LOVE IT!

I had thought something similar. But the reality is, AHA imposes a mandate to purchase private-sector insurance, i.e. part of the marketplace. Social Security and Medicare, as government-run programs, are not part of a marketplace.

And auto insurance is regulated by state laws.

Note that Romneycare in Massachusetts is nearly identical to the provisions of AHA, but is not under challenge. The Republicans keep saying that such a health insurance program is a "states" issue. Well, if it is, then what the hell are the states [[aside from Massachusetts and Hawaii) doing about it???

[HistoryNotHisStory]

I had thought something similar. But the reality is, AHA imposes a mandate to purchase private-sector insurance, i.e. part of the marketplace. Social Security and Medicare, as government-run programs, are not part of a marketplace.

And auto insurance is regulated by state laws.

Note that Romneycare in Massachusetts is nearly identical to the provisions of AHA, but is not under challenge. The Republicans keep saying that such a health insurance program is a "states" issue. Well, if it is, then what the hell are the states [[aside from Massachusetts and Hawaii) doing about it???

Auto Insurance may be a state law...... if the Supreme Court deems that that the government cannot penalize a person for not having health care, then the States cannot penalize for not having auto insurance.

[Johnnny5]

Auto Insurance may be a state law...... if the Supreme Court deems that that the government cannot penalize a person for not having health care, then the States cannot penalize for not having auto insurance.

Isn't auto liability insurance only required to drive on public roads? The government in that case is not really forcing anyone to buy the insurance, they have the choice to either do so or not drive on the roadways. Since the ability to drive is not a constitutional right I don't see how that would be affected by this ruling.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

Isn't auto liability insurance only required to drive on public roads? The government in that case is not really forcing anyone to buy the insurance, they have the choice to either do so or not drive on the roadways. Since the ability to drive is not a constitutional right I don't see how that would be affected by this ruling.

It is state law that all vehicle owners in Michigan has no-fault insurance.

Also, the police will ticket you and the State of Michigan will collect $450 in Drivers Responsibility Fees.

Recently, the Insurance companies were lobbying the Michigan legislature to make driving without insurance a felony.

[oladub]

GP, I mostly agree. Vermont was/is trying to have it's own single payer health care plan more like a Canadian provincial health care plan but the Obamacare people stepped in and required that any such Vermont plan had to include Obamacare as a starting point for their own plan. That was my understanding but this article says vermont is trying to opt out of Obamacare.
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=439x496528

[gazhekwe]

I heard the discussion on this subject and there were several distinctions made to separate mandatory auto insurance from the requirement to buy health care. The chief distinction was that the health care mandate applies to everyone, while auto insurance only applies to those who CHOOSE to have a car and drive it, therefore it is not the same. Secondly, it is a state law, and states have the right to regulate intrastate commerce. The health care mandate is interstate, so federal restrictions may apply. Bottom line, when it comes to getting our money, we can't win.

[Mikeg]

Reporter: Where, specifically, does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi: Are you serious? Are you serious? [Oct. 22, 2009 audio]

Ms. Pelosi never answered the reporter's question and apparently never asked it of herself or her colleagues prior to their passage of the monumental "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". As the former Speaker blithely assured us prior to its passage, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Since the Democrat-controlled 111th Congress passed this Act without reading all of its 2,700 pages and without fully knowing what was in it and with complete disregard as to its constitutionality, it's now left to the US Supreme Court to show that this is indeed a serious question and to provide the answer.

[ghettopalmetto]

Ms. Pelosi never answered the reporter's question and apparently never asked it of herself or her colleagues prior to their passage of the monumental "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". As the former Speaker blithely assured us prior to its passage, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Since the Democrat-controlled 111th Congress passed this Act without reading all of its 2,700 pages and without fully knowing what was in it and with complete disregard as to its constitutionality, it's now left to the US Supreme Court to show that this is indeed a serious question and to provide the answer.

The Congress has no standing to determine whether or not a law is Constitutional. That's why we have a Judicial Branch. But as a Constitutional scholar, you knew that.

Regardless, the provisions in the AHA were palatable to Republicans as recently as three years ago. It was only since January 20, 2009 that they began to oppose an individual mandate. An idea, mind you, that was cooked up by that well-known Socialist Nixon, and perfected by the left-wing Heritage Institute in the 1980s.

And now the waffling whiners on the far-right want to preserve their FREEDOM FROM RESPONSIBILITY by exploiting the most politicized Supreme Court in history. Congratulations on politicizing not only a major economic issue, but the lives of every single one of your constituents.

Seems like the only "freedom" the GOP wants us to have is the freedom to be sick, broke, and stupid.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

Ms. Pelosi never answered the reporter's question and apparently never asked it of herself or her colleagues prior to their passage of the monumental "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". As the former Speaker blithely assured us prior to its passage, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Since the Democrat-controlled 111th Congress passed this Act without reading all of its 2,700 pages and without fully knowing what was in it and with complete disregard as to its constitutionality, it's now left to the US Supreme Court to show that this is indeed a serious question and to provide the answer.

Social Security is not in the US Constitution.
Medicare is not in the US Constitution.
The IRS is not in the US Constitution.
The Federal Reserve is not in the US Constitution.

However, I am forced to pay taxes on Medicare and Social Security, give my money to the IRS and have the Federal Reserve Board [[ a non-government body) regulate my money with the world's biggest ponzi scheme.

That's the argument.

If the Health Care Bill is unconstitutional then Social Security, Medicare, and the Federal Reserve unconstitutional.

[oladub]

If the Health Care Bill is unconstitutional then Social Security, Medicare, and the Federal Reserve unconstitutional.

The 16th Amendment was added to allow the federal income tax of which the IRS is an administrative expression. Otherwise I would agree with your take being consistent with the wording of the usually ignored 10th Amendment. However, "Constitutional", in the real world, is whatever the courts determine and will be backed up by guns if necessary. If the Court determines that corporations are people, then corporations are people until another court looks at the issue regardless of whether or not the Constitution says so.

Also, under contract law, the government should honor it's promises to pay off on Social Security to everyone who has paid into it. I would be more worried about phony cost of living reports reducing the buying power of SS recipients than having anyone dismantling SS.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

The 16th Amendment was added to allow the federal income tax of which the IRS is an administrative expression. Otherwise I would agree with your take being consistent with the wording of the usually ignored 10th Amendment. However, "Constitutional", in the real world, is whatever the courts determine and will be backed up by guns if necessary. If the Court determines that corporations are people, then corporations are people until another court looks at the issue regardless of whether or not the Constitution says so.

Also, under contract law, the government should honor it's promises to pay off on Social Security to everyone who has paid into it. I would be more worried about phony cost of living reports reducing the buying power of SS recipients than having anyone dismantling SS.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." - 16TH Amendment.

This allows a tax for Healthcare.

However during the 18th century income was for businesses and corporations.

The workers get wages and not income.

[jiminnm]

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." - 16TH Amendment.

This allows a tax for Healthcare.

However during the 18th century income was for businesses and corporations.

The workers get wages and not income.

The 16th Amdt was passed in the 20th Century [[1913). It would allow a tax related to income, but the fine or penalty is not at all related to income. It is related to whether or not one purchases health insurance. The budget director, in fact, recently testified before Congress that it was not a tax.

Also, our tax code has always referred to income [[as in taxable income, adjusted gross income, etc.). Wages are just one subset of income.

[jiminnm]

If the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare, then People who cannot afford Healthcare shall receive it.

If the Supreme Court decides against ObamaCare and deem it illegal, then Social Security Insurance and Medicare is now illegal. The State of Michigan can no longer mandate that every vehicle owner maintain car insurance. I will be the first to go to court to get my refund on 30 years of payment to Social Security.

So regardless, the Republicans sending this bill to Supreme Court is a win-win situation for all.

Bye Bye mandatory Social Security tax, Medicare Tax, and Car insurance laws.

I LOVE IT!

This is simply not true.

The constitutionality of Social Security was decided by the SupCt in 1937 [[and Medicare would follow the same scenario). It was held constitutional, in part, because the funding is a tax related to income, pursuant to the 16th amendment. Obamacare funding is a fine or penalty for refusing to purchase insurance, a power that the Fed govt seemingly created on its own. The mandate to purchase something in the marketplace will also likely be found beyond the scope of federal constitutional power. Whether or not the remainder of the law can stand if funding and purchase mandate is found constitutional is an open issue.

The mandate to purchase auto insurance comes out of state law [[as gaz points out, it's intrastate commerce, with interstate commerce regulation belonging to the Feds). The Federal govt could not do this because it is beyond the scope of limited [[supposedly) powers granted to them by the constitution. States can do it because they are bound by their own constitutions [[unless a state constitution contradicts a right granted to the federal govt or to individuals under the Fed constitution). The 10th amendment still exists but, apparently, Congress prefers not to believe it has any importance or that federal power should be limited.

If Obamacare is found constitutional, likely nothing would then prevent the Feds from requiring auto, or any other type of, insurance deemed to affect many Americans. In fact, depending on the strength of the opinion, there may be arguments that the Feds could pretty much require other purchases and behaviors. I do not favor giving the Feds such broad powers.

[ghettopalmetto]

If Obamacare is found constitutional, likely nothing would then prevent the Feds from requiring auto, or any other type of, insurance deemed to affect many Americans. In fact, depending on the strength of the opinion, there may be arguments that the Feds could pretty much require other purchases and behaviors. I do not favor giving the Feds such broad powers.

Here's where I have a problem with the Supreme Court. This "limiting principle" is something the Supreme Court is supposed to find through the process of judicial interpretation, yes? Why are they demanding that the Government provide this? Is there anything in the Constitution that says the Congress CANNOT pass such a law?

Our government is designed as divided into three distinct branches, and a federalist system of national and state governments. THAT is the limiting principle. Not some stupid, selfish ideological bent designed to keep us all in the 18th Century.

[firstandten]

If Obamacare is found constitutional, likely nothing would then prevent the Feds from requiring auto, or any other type of, insurance deemed to affect many Americans. In fact, depending on the strength of the opinion, there may be arguments that the Feds could pretty much require other purchases and behaviors. I do not favor giving the Feds such broad powers.

The limiting principle as presented by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was this:

The market for health insurance is inseparable from the market for health care, those who choose not to buy health insurance will at some point require health care [[most likely at the ER) and the cost is borne by "the people" in the form of higher premiums. I think that is a very good argument.

I agree with GP that the burden of deciding a limiting principle should be the SC as they decide these cases on a case by case basis, rather than putting that burden on the legislative body.

[jiminnm]

It depends on your perspective on the Constitution and the role you think the federal govt should play in our governance.

I view the Constitution itself as the limiting document. That is, it was written to limit the powers of the federal govt to those areas where specific powers were specifically granted to the Feds and remaining governmental power was left to the states [[so long as individual rights protected by the US Constitution were not violated). The Fed executive and legislative branches have the power to act within their prescribed constitutional limits. Thus, I think both the exec and leg branches have a duty to act constitutionally, and the SupCt is the final arbiter of whether or not they did so.

I do not ascribe to the theory that all govt power is constitutional unless it is expressly prohibited. I think that constitutional provisions should be applied positively - i.e., did the govt act pursuant to a granted power? The premise behind our country's formation was that all governing powers inherently belong to the people, but the people were willing to grant powers to federal and state governments where it made sense to do so. We've argued about what that means for 235 years, but it still strikes me as a sound principle.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

I do not ascribe to the theory that all govt power is constitutional unless it is expressly prohibited. I think that constitutional provisions should be applied positively - i.e., did the govt act pursuant to a granted power? The premise behind our country's formation was that all governing powers inherently belong to the people, but the people were willing to grant powers to federal and state governments where it made sense to do so. We've argued about what that means for 235 years, but it still strikes me as a sound principle.

It's not a theory...

If the constitution does not not express certain scenarios then it is allowed or permitted.

For example, our state laws permits the carry of concealed weapons with a permit. However, it does not state anything about openly carrying a weapon. Therefore, Michigan citizens has a right to carry a weapon openly.

Our Founding Fathers saw that certain issues will arise. This is why the constitution allocate for Amendment. If you don't like it, then change the Amend the Constitution.

Otherwise deal with it.

[jiminnm]

It's not a theory...

If the constitution does not not express certain scenarios then it is allowed or permitted.

For example, our state laws permits the carry of concealed weapons with a permit. However, it does not state anything about openly carrying a weapon. Therefore, Michigan citizens has a right to carry a weapon openly.

Our Founding Fathers saw that certain issues will arise. This is why the constitution allocate for Amendment. If you don't like it, then change the Amend the Constitution.

Otherwise deal with it.

You missed the last couple of hundred years of Federal constitutional jurisprudence if you think that that federal actions do not have to have a constitutional basis. It's not the other way around. In fact, the Constitution might well have to be amended to have it be interpreted the way you suggest.

What the states can or cannot do is not relevant to the Obamacare case. The US Constitution governs the actions of the Federal govt in those areas where the Feds are granted powers. In all other areas, the states are free to exercise any powers so long as they do not contravene Fed power or constitutionally protected rights of individuals, and co not violate their own state constitution. Looking at how a state applies it's statutory law in your example is an entirely different situation, and not at all comparable, to how the use of federal power is evaluated under the US Constitution.

BTW, the SupCt recently held that gun ownership is a fundamental right protected by the 2nd Amendment. There will likely now be a series of cases, as happened with abortion, to determine how much local regulation of that right can be applied by the states before that constitutional right is violated.

You deal with it.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

This is simply not true.

The constitutionality of Social Security was decided by the SupCt in 1937 [[and Medicare would follow the same scenario). It was held constitutional, in part, because the funding is a tax related to income, pursuant to the 16th amendment. Obamacare funding is a fine or penalty for refusing to purchase insurance, a power that the Fed govt seemingly created on its own. The mandate to purchase something in the marketplace will also likely be found beyond the scope of federal constitutional power. Whether or not the remainder of the law can stand if funding and purchase mandate is found constitutional is an open issue.

The mandate to purchase auto insurance comes out of state law [[as gaz points out, it's intrastate commerce, with interstate commerce regulation belonging to the Feds). The Federal govt could not do this because it is beyond the scope of limited [[supposedly) powers granted to them by the constitution. States can do it because they are bound by their own constitutions [[unless a state constitution contradicts a right granted to the federal govt or to individuals under the Fed constitution). The 10th amendment still exists but, apparently, Congress prefers not to believe it has any importance or that federal power should be limited.

If Obamacare is found constitutional, likely nothing would then prevent the Feds from requiring auto, or any other type of, insurance deemed to affect many Americans. In fact, depending on the strength of the opinion, there may be arguments that the Feds could pretty much require other purchases and behaviors. I do not favor giving the Feds such broad powers.

Your statements validate my argument. If they find it unconstitutional then the Supreme Court ruling of 1937 will be reversed. There is no gray area in the constitutionalism of a national health care plan or Social Security Tax and Medicare Tax. It is one and the same.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the National Health Care Law, the Lawyers from the extreme right and left will attack the courts to revoke Social Security Taxes.

[jiminnm]

Your statements validate my argument. If they find it unconstitutional then the Supreme Court ruling of 1937 will be reversed. There is no gray area in the constitutionalism of a national health care plan or Social Security Tax and Medicare Tax. It is one and the same.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the National Health Care Law, the Lawyers from the extreme right and left will attack the courts to revoke Social Security Taxes.

I don't think you understand the issues, because they are vastly different.

The issue of whether or not a mandate to purchase a product or service in the market from a private provider was not an issue in determining the constitutionality of s/s, because that was and is not the process. The issue of funding s/s was an issue, but found constitutional because it is a tax related to income [[as allowed by the 16th amdt).

Actually, there would be a constitutional argument in favor of a single payer national health care plan. But that is not what we have.

[Mikeg]

Having to pay for auto insurance, drivers license, SS and Medicare can be all be legally avoided: don't own a car, don't drive someone else's car and don't work.

Instead of trying to convince us that these are equivalents to the individual mandate and that they are all around us, please tell us exactly how someone can legally avoid having to pay for health care insurance under Obamacare's individual mandate ?

Speaking of Obama, what planet is he living on when he says something this absurd?

"I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

The "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" [[aka Obamacare) passed by a vote of 60 to 39 in the Senate [[hacing barely avoided a filibuster) and by a slim, 219 to 212 majority in the House, where 34 Democrats joined their Republican colleagues in bipartisan opposition to the Act.

BTW, 32 of those House Democrats who voted for Obamacare were democratically "unelected" in Nov. 2010.

[ghettopalmetto]

Instead of trying to convince us that these are equivalents to the individual mandate and that they are all around us, please tell us exactly how someone can legally avoid having to pay for health care insurance under Obamacare's individual mandate ?

Don't get sick and don't die. Otherwise, you're a consumer of healthcare, and will thus, need health insurance at some point.

For an interesting perspective, read the Second Militia Act, which posed an individual mandate for all males of a certain age to purchase firearms from a private-sector manufacturer. This Act has remained unchallenged in the courts for over 200 years, giving further credence to the thought that this AHA lawsuit is nothing more than pure politics on behalf of the right-wing.

Still waiting for the "replace" portion of the GOP's "repeal and replace" to be germinated....

[firstandten]

Don't get sick and don't die. Otherwise, you're a consumer of healthcare, and will thus, need health insurance at some point.
Still waiting for the "replace" portion of the GOP's "repeal and replace" to be germinated....

Great comment ! For those of you that hate Obamacare I'm also waiting for the replace part of repeal and replace

We could look at Singapore's model, the right kind of likes this. Everyone has a health care account [[the rightwing is into the vouchers's and saving accounts). However its mandated that everyone who works pays into the account, that amount is matched by the companies. Routine health care like doctor's visits, prescriptions are out of pocket. This would cover only the large health care cost. And they have separate plan for nursing home care if needed. The indigent get gov't health care. So in effect Singapore has universal health care.

However at least in America the out of pocket expenses for health care especially for prescriptions can clean your pocket.

I'm sure one could find other models of health care coverage that is universal or nearly universal but they are going to require some type of mandate.

I'm betting that SCOTUS will uphold the individual mandate after the political theatre dies down.

[JBMcB]

For an interesting perspective, read the Second Militia Act, which posed an individual mandate for all males of a certain age to purchase firearms from a private-sector manufacturer. This Act has remained unchallenged in the courts for over 200 years, giving further credence to the thought that this AHA lawsuit is nothing more than pure politics on behalf of the right-wing.

That power is limited to times of national emergencies and/or insurrections. It's been generally held that the president can set aside constitutional protections during these times, it's not a perpetual arrangement.

Apples and oranges, in other words.