According to this article:
http://www.thenation.com/article/166...constitutional
"..., the only “liberty” that would be protected by a victory for the challengers is the freedom of insurance companies to discriminate against sick people..."
Printable View
According to this article:
http://www.thenation.com/article/166...constitutional
"..., the only “liberty” that would be protected by a victory for the challengers is the freedom of insurance companies to discriminate against sick people..."
"...Conservatives are fond of reminding us that society involves not just rights but responsibilities. Yet here, they don’t seem to get it—the right afforded by the ACA will work only if it comes with the responsibility to purchase insurance if you can afford it. In the end, the challenge to “Obamacare” is not conservative at all; it’s radically libertarian..."
The article says that Wickard v. Filburn imposed federal limits on home-grown wheat never intended to be marketed at all, because home production would reduce demand and thereby affect the price of wheat. That was a mind blowing revelation. I thought that only Monsanto or Goldman Sachs lawyers could manage to obtain such perfected corporatist outcomes. The author did harp back to the Roosevelt administration a couple of ties though. There was a time when Roosevelt admired Mussolini's corporatist economic solutions. From that court case, it follows that any good or service we provide for ourselves similarly distorts national demand and can therefore be regulated by the federal government. Liberty is so problematic to our overseers.
We are embarking on the road to serfdom on which our bureaucratic overseers determine which of their products we have to consume for the general welfare and their own proifit. They know how much we are worth and they want us to give it up... to them. The required consumption of insurance company products isn't the beginning either. One new law requires contractors to get certified in lead-safe work practices if their work disturbs more than 6 square feet of paint on the interior or a 20-square-foot section on the exterior of a home built before 1978. Forget about having you brother-in-law come over and give you a hand. He could be highly penalized for doing so. The law also might require new windows and other expenses that will result in owners walking away from some properties if the costs as greater than the value of the home. Planned obsolescence on the part of the Obama administration forcing people who can't necessarily afford to do so to float the economy. This is beyond taxation or even the hidden inflationary tax. This is bending over for the man. Enjoy your serfdom. Liberty is bad,bad.
"I owe my soul to the company store." [[We're supposed to sing along and vote for Obama or Romney. That's it.)
Oh, while I'm at it. The Federal Reserve is concerned about the Constitution too or at least concerned about bankers' privileges. It is funding constitutional instruction materials to indoctrinate school children to learn that the Federal Reserve is constitutional. Baaaa.
Sorry Maxx, neither you [[through your misleading thread title) or The Nation get to determine the constitutionality of Obamacare. The US Supreme Court will do so later this year. The article also overlooks a couple of points. Or, maybe, they're omitted because those points don't support the author's point.
First, in the case where the USSC found social security to be constitutional, FDR's administration argued that s/s was a tax [[because it was based on the 16th amendment requirement that taxes be related to income) and not an insurance plan. That case [[Helvering, if I remember correctly) followed the court's decisions that several New Deal acts were unconstitutional, including a railroad retirement act that looked a lot like the original s/s proposal. Those decisions are what led to FDR's threat to pack the court. Congress rewrote the law to separate benefits and the s/s tax, and successfully argued that the plan was not insurance. Obamacare is structured differently and the so-called fine is more integral to the law. One court has found that the fine is so integrated into the law and that the fine was unconsitutional, so, therefore, the entire law is unconstitutional.
Second, Obama's Budget Director recently testified before Congress about the budget. During questions about what new taxes were included in the budget he was asked, twice I think, if that fine was considered a tax. He answered specifically that the fine was not a tax. I don't know if the administration submitted corrected testimony or not.
The article also did not mention something that could be supportive, the prospective decision making. The court usually does not determine the constitutionality of an act that hasn't been implemented, unless it is blatantly unconstitutional on its face. Other decisions haven't fully adddressed this, and the court could easy find that once the fine was implemented it would be too late withdraw it and have the law continue to be functional.
The mandate to purchase insurance, and the fine, will be major factors in deciding constitutionality of Obamacare. There is a reasonable chance that some, if not all, of Obamacare wil be found unconsitutional.
I don't know if you're referring to the gov. or corps.. Under the pressure of ever more profits, customers are getting fewer and fewer choices. For instance, I've been told that one factory makes all the bathtubs for the world market. Also simple things like plastic washtubs have one design now. It always starts out small. Creeping conformity. Be happy. We can still grow our own veggies provided there is fresh water and in my case, I can beat all the local varmints.Quote:
Oladub:We are embarking on the road to serfdom on which our bureaucratic overseers determine which of their products we have to consume for the general welfare and their own profit.
jiminnm:
Anything's possible. We have Citizens United to live with for the moment.
So many people fight over health care. It's kind of funny when you think about it.
By "Corporatist", I mean a collusion between government and large corporations. Sometimes cooperative unions are invited along for the ride. Republicans tend to attack the government part of the collusion, Democrats decry to corporate half of the equation. In the end they compromise and come up with corporatist solutions satisfying their respective constituents. Anyone not covered by such corporatist umbrellas are out in the cold being squeezed by new laws designed to favor those large corporations.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxx
This being a health care thread, I should stick to that. The FDA not only regulates drugs to keep us safe, it does so in a way that only the biggest pharmaceuticals can afford to play the regulatory game. The FDA works along with Monsanto too by approving Monsanto products while squeezing out it's competition with regulations and even swat team raids. Monsanto executives have populated high positions in both the Bush and Obama administrations to determine food and agricultural policy. Result: Amish farmers and health food coops have been raided while rBGH [[not allowed in Europe Because of concerns about cancer) is a staple in the milk we buy at the grocery. rBGH, franken-foods, fluoride, mercury containing silver amalgam fillings, sodium phosphate, other preservatives are all blessed and ordained by the same federal government bringing us Obamacare even though most our outlawed by European health authorities.
As usual the answer is to get big money out of our elections, i.e., campaign finance reform. Those laws against growing your own wheat just shows the influence of Big Ag on the gov. and that big businesses are not capitalists at all.They are monopolists.