Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justices Question Obamacare Mandate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Justices Question Obamacare Mandate

    Finally someone with some damn sense....





    Conservative Supreme Court justices sharply question whether the government can force Americans to carry health insurance, wondering if Congress might people to buy broccoli.


    Sharp questioning by the Supreme Court's conservative justices has cast serious doubt on the survival of the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul.

    Arguments at the high court Tuesday focused on whether the insurance requirement "is a step beyond what our cases allow," in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

    He and Chief Justice John Roberts are emerging as the seemingly pivotal votes.

    Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito appeared likely to join with Justice Clarence Thomas to vote to strike down the key provision. The four Democratic appointees seemed ready to vote to uphold it.

    The conservatives questioned whether the government can force Americans to carry health insurance, wondering in arguments over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul if Congress might next force people to buy broccoli or burial insurance.

    "If the government can do that, what else can it" do? asked Scalia, referring to the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.


    The congressional requirement to buy health care insurance is the linchpin of the law's aim to get medical insurance to an additional 30 million people, at a reasonable cost to private insurers and state governments. Virtually every American will be affected by the court's decision on the law's constitutionality, due this summer in the heat of the presidential and congressional election campaigns.

    Recognizing the significance of the case, the justices are allowing audio of the arguments to be released on the same day. The audio of Monday's arguments can be found here.

    Scalia, as well as Roberts, Alito and Kennedy, pressed Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on whether people can be forced to buy things like cars, broccoli and burial insurance if the government can make them buy health insurance.

    Kennedy at one point said that allowing the government mandate would "change the relationship" between the government and its citizens.

    Your Money Your Vote - A CNBC Special Report

    "Do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authority under the Constitution" for the individual mandate? asked Kennedy, who is often the swing vote on cases that divide the justices along ideological lines.

    Scalia repeatedly pointed out that the federal government's powers are limited by the Constitution, with the rest left to the states and the people. "The argument there is that the people were left to decide whether to buy health insurance," Scalia said.

    Scalia and Roberts noted that the health care overhaul law would make people get insurance for things they may not need, like heart transplants or pregnancy services. "You can't say that everybody is going to participate in substance abuse services," Roberts said.

    On the other hand, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "The people who don't participate in this market are making it more expensive for those who do."

    "You could say that about buying a car," Scalia retorted, noting that if enough people don't buy cars the cost could go up.

    But, unlike cars, almost everyone eventually will be required to use the health care system, said Verrilli, the solicitor general making the administration's case. Without health insurance, he said, "you're going to the market without the ability to pay for what you're going to get."

    Demonstrators returned Tuesday to the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court, with more than 100 supporters of the law circling and chanting, "A healthy America is a productive America," "Protect the law," and, "I love Obamacare."

    More than a dozen opponents held a news conference criticizing the bill.

    Supporters, two of them wearing statue of liberty costumes, marched to the song "Walking on Sunshine" and Stevie Wonder's "Signed, Sealed, Delivered I'm Yours," being played over a loudspeaker. A trumpet player played "When the Saints Go Marching In" and "this little light of mine," and supporters changed the lyrics to ones supporting the health care law.

    One demonstrator opposing the law wore a striped prison costume and held a sign, "Obama Care is Putting the US Tax Payer in Debtors Prison."

    Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a former Republican presidential candidate, joined a tea party press conference of opponents of the law. Calling the law "the greatest expansion of federal power in the history of the country," she said, "We are calling on the court today: Declare this law unconstitutional."
    Originally posted by racrguy
    What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
    Originally posted by racrguy
    Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

  • #2
    Forgive my ignorance, is the problem with the bill the fact that the government is making you purchase something and it can be a gateway to forcing other things onto the American people?

    Iirc, one thing about obamacare is making it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage for those with preexisting conditions. As a man with crohns disease I am for this small part. IS there anything i'm overlooking making this part a bad thing?

    Edit: to be clear I am not for the bill

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by TEAMJACOB View Post
      Forgive my ignorance, is the problem with the bill the fact that the government is making you purchase something and it can be a gateway to forcing other things onto the American people?

      Iirc, one thing about obamacare is making it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage for those with preexisting conditions. As a man with feigned disease I am for this small part. IS there anything i'm overlooking making this part a bad thing?
      The issue is this bill forces citizens to buy something from a private company or face a penalty. There is no provision in the Constitution that clearly gives the government the power to do that. So they are relying on a loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause in order to justify it. The point that the justices above made is correct, if the government can force someone to buy insurance "for the public good" then there is nothing that they can't force someone to do "for the public good". That is, the public good is not enough to justify anything.
      Originally posted by racrguy
      What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
      Originally posted by racrguy
      Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

      Comment


      • #4
        I like government cheese.

        Comment


        • #5
          Looks like Obama is against the Mandate as well.



          Wait, that was BEFORE he got elected so it doesn't count.

          Comment


          • #6
            Nice attack ad pitting Obama v Obama on the Mandate.

            Comment


            • #7
              I can always tell when that fucker is lying because his lips are moving.

              Comment


              • #8
                It is b.s. and even Obama knows it. The fact is, forcing everyone to get healthcare will not make healthcare less expensive. Because now, people who previously couldn't get healthcare because they have a chronic illness, will now be jacking the price up for everyone else (prices are already rising). Call me stupid, but I wouldn't want to pay for someone elses illness when I rarely go to the hospital or the doctor ( literally been twice in my life). I do have healthcare now from my work, but 3 of my brothers do not. They find it cheaper to pay the doctor as they go, seeing as they never go.

                Comment


                • #9
                  You already do... most states (including Texas) have a risk pool insurance that's funded by state dollars to give insurance to people that otherwise can't get it (no job, not offered, "uninsurable" due to a preexisting condition like diabetes or high cholesterol (seriously, no joke).

                  And you also fund medicare/medicaid/insurance for congress...

                  While I struggle with the forcing to buy into an obviously flawed and greedy industry... denying people access to healthcare is something I can't get behind. We paid out over $12k in medical last year. If I didn't make decent money our quality of life would definitely have suffered (and some necessary things would have been skipped due to the cost).

                  Having to choose whether to go to the dr. when in severe pain because you're afraid it's going to ruin you financially is a terrible choice to have to make and frankly is irresponsible.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    One of the clips I heard today was an advocate saying he was not arguing from the commerce clause, instead making the point that the mandate was based on anticipating individual participation in health care. You know, the "Minority Report" argument.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by goofygrin View Post
                      You already do... most states (including Texas) have a risk pool insurance that's funded by state dollars to give insurance to people that otherwise can't get it (no job, not offered, "uninsurable" due to a preexisting condition like diabetes or high cholesterol (seriously, no joke).

                      And you also fund medicare/medicaid/insurance for congress...

                      While I struggle with the forcing to buy into an obviously flawed and greedy industry... denying people access to healthcare is something I can't get behind. We paid out over $12k in medical last year. If I didn't make decent money our quality of life would definitely have suffered (and some necessary things would have been skipped due to the cost).

                      Having to choose whether to go to the dr. when in severe pain because you're afraid it's going to ruin you financially is a terrible choice to have to make and frankly is irresponsible.
                      What? No, some people just don't have the need to go to the doctor for every little thing such as the flu, when some people go for minor things. Your opinion on someone being irresponsible may be different than mine. If I have 20k+ in the bank at all times, how is it irresponsible to not have healthcare when you can afford to go to the doctor at any time you want. If my job didn't give me health insurance, I still wouldn't have it. I would rather pay out of pocket when I need to go to the hospital. My dad only went to the hospital one, and that is when he passed away. He never needed health insurance.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think it's quite simple to bring anecdotal evidence in that some people never need to go to the doctor and then assume that it's the same for everyone. Too bad it's a terrible argument.

                        My kid has bad teeth (my wife's gene's at play). We hit our $1k deductible yearly.

                        My wife has blood disorders, appears to now have Crohn's (or some other GI disease, we'll find out more tomorrow), chronic sinusitis (has had 3 surgeries), migraines, scoliosis and a couple other issues (yes she's defective, sometimes I do wish that I could wave a magic wand and make it all better). If we didn't have health insurance, there's no way she'd be as functional as she is.

                        The simple reality is that many, many people can and will go broke under medical debt. Either insurance or some sort of healthcare reform has to happen.

                        Now... I'm more for an Australian type system. Everyone has health care. People that make a certain amount buy a private policy (their choice of provider, and the policy is required or you pay a higher tax). This private policy allows them to go to private facilities under that policy.

                        So... you have basic coverage for those that can't afford it (and likely need it the most) and private coverage similar to our system for those who can/should afford it.

                        FYI... your $20k in the bank will last about 6 hours into the ER at "standard" rates. My wife was in a couple weeks ago and things like an "emergency" CT are $7k. Not like you can go shop doctors or facilities at 4am on a Sunday. You take what you can get.
                        Last edited by goofygrin; 03-27-2012, 05:13 PM. Reason: fuck me I'm on a grammar failboat today.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by goofygrin View Post
                          You already do... most states (including Texas) have a risk pool insurance that's funded by state dollars to give insurance to people that otherwise can't get it (no job, not offered, "uninsurable" due to a preexisting condition like diabetes or high cholesterol (seriously, no joke).

                          And you also fund medicare/medicaid/insurance for congress...

                          While I struggle with the forcing to buy into an obviously flawed and greedy industry... denying people access to healthcare is something I can't get behind. We paid out over $12k in medical last year. If I didn't make decent money our quality of life would definitely have suffered (and some necessary things would have been skipped due to the cost).

                          Having to choose whether to go to the dr. when in severe pain because you're afraid it's going to ruin you financially is a terrible choice to have to make and frankly is irresponsible.
                          Your pain and story has no relevance here. The only thing that creates new federal power is an amendment. It doesnt' matter if everyone in the US has TB and is dying by the thousands, the federal government has no power to do anything under the constitution.


                          Please check with your state.
                          I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by goofygrin View Post
                            I think it's quite simple to bring anecdotal evidence in that some people never need to go to the doctor and then assume that it's the same for everyone. Too bad it's a terrible argument.

                            FYI... your $20k in the bank will last about 6 hours into the ER at "standard" rates. My wife was in a couple weeks ago and things like an "emergency" CT are $7k. Not like you can go shop doctors or facilities at 4am on a Sunday. You take what you can get.
                            So forcing people to buy insurance they may never use, is a terrible arguement? I think it is a terrible arguement to assume someone will need healthcare. Not all of us are plagued with medical issues (knock on wood). Sure 20k wouldn't last long for some serious problem. However, hospitals do also have payment plans. My father passed at the age of 50. So say he was forced to get healthcare at 25, how much you think he would have paid in for 25 years. Fyi, his medical bill at the hospital was $1,200. How do you think health insurance makes money? Because the majority never use the amount they pay in.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by goofygrin View Post
                              I think it's quite simple to bring anecdotal evidence in that some people never need to go to the doctor and then assume that it's the same for everyone. Too bad it's a terrible argument.

                              My kid has bad teeth (my wife's gene's at play). We hit our $1k deductible yearly.

                              My wife has blood disorders, appears to now have Crohn's (or some other GI disease, we'll find out more tomorrow), chronic sinusitis (has had 3 surgeries), migraines, scoliosis and a couple other issues (yes she's defective, sometimes I do wish that I could wave a magic wand and make it all better). If we didn't have health insurance, there's no way she'd be as functional as she is.

                              The simple reality is that many, many people can and will go broke under medical debt. Either insurance or some sort of healthcare reform has to happen.

                              Now... I'm more for an Australian type system. Everyone has health care. People that make a certain amount buy a private policy (their choice of provider, and the policy is required or you pay a higher tax). This private policy allows them to go to private facilities under that policy.

                              So... you have basic coverage for those that can't afford it (and likely need it the most) and private coverage similar to our system for those who can/should afford it.

                              FYI... your $20k in the bank will last about 6 hours into the ER at "standard" rates. My wife was in a couple weeks ago and things like an "emergency" CT are $7k. Not like you can go shop doctors or facilities at 4am on a Sunday. You take what you can get.

                              Not true. You shop doctors before you need them. YOu discuss payments, costs for services and how much they charge per hour. No one has a right to insurance of any kind. Deciding that you are owed more money than you pay in or the labor of others (insurance companies, doctors, nurses, etc) is slavery. You are enslaving someone else for your own gain.
                              I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X