Individual Mandate Constitutional

[TomServo92]

 

My vote would be that it's the fault of Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or Beck.

 

You forgot Bush in that list.

[Bored of Pisteon]

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/michael-savage-roberts-affected-by-medication/

 

I wouldn't doubt it.

[Edstock]

Those people are in prison because they have committed crimes.

 

Talk to a district attorney sometime. The simple fact is that the people in jail deserve to be there,

 

Until they find evidence, like DNA that proves they haven't committed crimes. You know, the evidence that goes missing, that doesn't get shared with the defense counsel? Your faith in the infallibility of the system is charmingly delusional.

[Langston Hughes]

Roberts was explicit when he said the mandate was NOT Constitutional under the Commerce Clause.

 

If anything, he suggested that (homegrown) drug laws are also not covered by the Commerce Clause. (ie. to refrain from commerce is not subject to Congressional regulation under the Constitution)

 

I understand exactly what the implications are and I agree with you. However under the Rehnquist court they expanded some aspects of the commerce clause to a level beyond what most scholars felt was correct.

[RangerM]

I understand exactly what the implications are and I agree with you. However under the Rehnquist court they expanded some aspects of the commerce clause to a level beyond what most scholars felt was correct.

From Roberts' opinion:

People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures—joined with the similar failures of others—can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act.

 

That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. James Madison explained that the CommerceClause was "an addition which few oppose and from whichno apprehensions are entertained." The Federalist No. 45, at 293. While Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause has of course expanded with the growth of the national economy, our cases have "always recognized that the power to regulate commerce, though broad indeed, has limits."Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183, 196 (1968). The Government’s theory would erode those limits, permitting Congress to reach beyond the natural extent of its authority, "everywhere extending the sphere of its activity anddrawing all power into its impetuous vortex." The Federalist No. 48, at 309 (J. Madison). Congress already enjoysvast power to regulate much of what we do. Accepting the Government’s theory would give Congress the samelicense to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal

Government.

 

To an economist, perhaps, there is no difference between activity and inactivity; both have measurable economic effects on commerce. But the distinction between doingsomething and doing nothing would not have been lost on the Framers, who were "practical statesmen," not metaphysical philosophers. Industrial Union Dept., AFL–CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U. S. 607, 673 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment). As we have explained, "the framers of the Constitution were not mere visionaries, toying with speculations or theories, but practical men, dealing with the facts of political life as they understood them, putting into form the government they were creating, and prescribing in language clear and intelligible the powers that government was to take." South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 449 (1905). The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have reflected this understanding. There is no reason to depart from that understanding now.

 

The Government sees things differently. It argues that because sickness and injury are unpredictable but unavoidable, "the uninsured as a class are active in the market for health care, which they regularly seek and obtain."Brief for United States 50. The individual mandate "merely regulates how individuals finance and pay for that active participation—requiring that they do so through insurance, rather than through attempted self-insurancewith the back-stop of shifting costs to others." Ibid.

 

The Government repeats the phrase "active in the market for health care" throughout its brief, see id., at 7, 18, 34, 50, but that concept has no constitutional significance.An individual who bought a car two years ago and may buy another in the future is not "active in the car market"in any pertinent sense. The phrase "active in the market"cannot obscure the fact that most of those regulated by the individual mandate are not currently engaged in any commercial activity involving health care, and that fact is fatal to the Government’s effort to "regulate the uninsured as a class." Id., at 42. Our precedents recognize Congress’s power to regulate "class[es] of activities," Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 17 (2005) (emphasis added), not classes of individuals, apart from any activity in whichthey are engaged, see, e.g., Perez, 402 U. S., at 153 ("Petitioner is clearly a member of the class which engages in‘extortionate credit transactions’ . . ." (emphasis deleted)).

 

The individual mandate’s regulation of the uninsured as a class is, in fact, particularly divorced from any link to existing commercial activity. The mandate primarily affects healthy, often young adults who are less likely to need significant health care and have other priorities forspending their money. It is precisely because these individuals, as an actuarial class, incur relatively low healthcare costs that the mandate helps counter the effect offorcing insurance companies to cover others who imposegreater costs than their premiums are allowed to reflect.See 42 U. S. C. §18091(2)(I) (recognizing that the mandatewould "broaden the health insurance risk pool to include healthy individuals, which will lower health insurance premiums"). If the individual mandate is targeted at a class, it is a class whose commercial inactivity rather than activity is its defining feature.

 

The Government, however, claims that this does not matter. The Government regards it as sufficient to triggerCongress’s authority that almost all those who are uninsured will, at some unknown point in the future, engagein a health care transaction. Asserting that "[t]here is no temporal limitation in the Commerce Clause," the Government argues that because "everyone subject to this regulation is in or will be in the health care market," they can be "regulated in advance." Tr. of Oral Arg. 109 (Mar. 27, 2012).

 

The proposition that Congress may dictate the conduct of an individual today because of prophesied future activity finds no support in our precedent. We have said that Congress can anticipate the effects on commerce of an economic activity. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U. S. 197 (1938) (regulating the labor practices of utility companies); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241 (1964) (prohibiting discrimination byhotel operators); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294 (1964) (prohibiting discrimination by restaurant owners). But we have never permitted Congress to anticipate that activity itself in order to regulate individuals not currently engaged in commerce. Each one of our cases, including those cited by JUSTICE GINSBURG, post, at 20–21, involved preexisting economic activity. See, e.g., Wickard, 317 U. S., at 127–129 (producing wheat); Raich, supra, at 25 (growing marijuana)

 

Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individualfrom cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.

 

The Government argues that the individual mandatecan be sustained as a sort of exception to this rule, because health insurance is a unique product. According to the Government, upholding the individual mandate would not justify mandatory purchases of items such as cars or broccoli because, as the Government puts it, "health insurance is not purchased for its own sake like a car or broccoli; it is a means of financing health-care consumption and covering universal risks." Reply Brief for United States 19. But cars and broccoli are no more purchased for their "own sake" than health insurance. They are purchased to cover the need for transportation and food.

 

The Government says that health insurance and healthcare financing are "inherently integrated." Brief for United States 41. But that does not mean the compelled purchaseof the first is properly regarded as a regulation of thesecond. No matter how "inherently integrated" health insurance and health care consumption may be, they arenot the same thing: They involve different transactions,entered into at different times, with different providers.And for most of those targeted by the mandate, significant health care needs will be years, or even decades, away. The proximity and degree of connection between the mandate and the subsequent commercial activity is too lacking to justify an exception of the sort urged by the Government. The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to "regulate Commerce."

Edited June 29, 2012 by RangerM

[grbeck]

Until they find evidence, like DNA that proves they haven't committed crimes. You know, the evidence that goes missing, that doesn't get shared with the defense counsel? Your faith in the infallibility of the system is charmingly delusional.

 

I never said that the system is infallible. The number of people in jail because of prosecutorial misconduct is a very small percentage of the total prison population. Granted, one is too many...but the bottom line is that the overwhelming majority people in jail belong there.

 

Of course, if you ask the prisoners and their families, our jails are filled with innocent people. Having dealt with both (not as part of a district attorney's office), let's just say that their claims of innocence and being railroaded by a corrupt system start to fall apart upon close questioning.

 

The delusional ones are those who take their claims at face value, or believe that people are in jail solely because of prosecutorial misconduct or draconian drug laws.

 

We could simply open the prison doors and allow the George Zimmermans of the world handle crime, which would certainly cut down on the costs of incarceration and eliminate the recidivism problem, but lots of people on the left don't seem to like that approach, either.

Edited June 29, 2012 by grbeck

[Mark B. Morrow]

I'm pointing out that there is a penalty for not complying, contrary to the assertions of others. And hospitals may not be able to refuse treatment, but they will go after you for unpaid bills. I've seen that happen before.

 

The Hospital can sue for the services, but in many cases they can't collect. That's the reason that around 60% of personal bankruptcy cases involve unpaid medical bills. There is a penalty or tax for not having insurance. The purpose is to encourage participation in the insurance pool and to recover some revenue from those who choose not to.

 

Since Doctors and hospitals are not free to refuse emergency treatment, this is a way to deal with the costs incurred. You can argue that there are better ways to accomplish this, but thus far, no one else has come up with a better comprehensive plan that isn't single payer.

[RangerM]

The Hospital can sue for the services, but in many cases they can't collect. That's the reason that around 60% of personal bankruptcy cases involve unpaid medical bills. There is a penalty or tax for not having insurance. The purpose is to encourage participation in the insurance pool and to recover some revenue from those who choose not to.

 

Since Doctors and hospitals are not free to refuse emergency treatment, this is a way to deal with the costs incurred. You can argue that there are better ways to accomplish this, but thus far, no one else has come up with a better comprehensive plan that isn't single payer.

 

There is a tax for not having health insurance, IF you meet certain income criteria. If you are too poor to pay the tax, you don't have to.

 

There is no true "penalty" for not having health insurance. If there were it would be the same "penalty" for everyone regardless of income status.

Edited June 29, 2012 by RangerM

[retro-man]

My deal is exactly what Mark said: there are a couple of reasons our system is so effed up, but one of them is that we simply allow people - virtually 100% of whom will use medical services at some point - to opt out of the risk pool. You know, and I know, many young, healthy people who simply choose not to carry insurance a.) because it is so expensive (not in the least part because of people exactly like them), and b.) they want to use the funds for something else at that point in life. That drives up costs for those remaining in the system. Universal health care - single payer - would be the most direct and simple way to eliminate this problem, but we can't have that here due to ideological reasons (which flatter themselves as "practical" or "logical" reasons - despite all evidence in their face from peer countries). So mandated coverage (same as my state has for auto insurance if you want to drive), is the stopgap compromise - the "realpolitik". This "same penalty for everyone regardless of income status" sounds a lot like the argument we were having on taxes on a different thread - and seems like a simplistic adherence to ideo-logic semantics rather than anything truly fair to me. Anything truly fair would account for circumstances. This refusal to account for circumstances appears to me as almost a Darwinistic (perhaps subconscious) drive to eliminate "the unfit" (biologically, mentally, morally, economically) from the pool. Charge the poor street person and Warren Buffett the same $10,000.00 in taxes (because they both use the same government services, right? - that's what someone said) and the poor guy and the government will both starve! A Conservative's dream! Make everybody pay their own individual freight in the health care system, preserve insurer's options to select their own risk pools (so as not to unduly burden their customers or shareholders - or, more to the point, to allow them to maximize profits), and the unfit will die off - either from starvation (diversion of scarce resources from food to medical care) or lack of access, or both. He's unfit, that's his problem, not mine. Let them sell all their possessions to pay for his care, and move into the church basement. His Leukemia is probably the result of a weak character or bad lifestyle choices anyway. Right now, we don't have that extreme - but we have elements of it, as the number of uninsured and the statistics on medical bankruptcy bear out.

Edited June 29, 2012 by retro-man

[Edstock]

I never said that the system is infallible. The number of people in jail because of prosecutorial misconduct is a very small percentage of the total prison population. Granted, one is too many...but the bottom line is that the overwhelming majority people in jail belong there.

 

The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of its prison population. If "the overwhelming majority people in jail belong there", and the US has around 5X the prison population of other countries, it seems that you have acquired a societal problem.

 

The real question is, is it sustainable? Also, what will happen when South American countries give up on the War on Drugs and do a Portugal?

[grbeck]

The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of its prison population. If "the overwhelming majority people in jail belong there", and the US has around 5X the prison population of other countries, it seems that you have acquired a societal problem.

 

The real question is, is it sustainable? Also, what will happen when South American countries give up on the War on Drugs and do a Portugal?

 

The United States is ranked about 17th in crimes committed per 100,000 residents or behind such countries as Canada, the Netherlands and Germany.

 

We do have a higher murder rate compared to those nations, part of which is a reflection of the influence of gangs. Many gangs accompany illegal and even some legal immigrants. Murder in the United States tends to happen among the same subsets of population, and even in the same geographic area. Thus, here in Harrisburg, virtually all murders over the last three years have involved an African-American shooting or stabbing another African-American or Hispanic, and in the same general neighborhood. The rest of the area is remarkably safe.

 

Sentences tend to be longer in the United States than in other nations, which is another factor that increases the number of people in jail. Burglars in the United States, for example, serve about 16 months in the United States, compared to five months in Canada and about 7 months in Great Britain. Meanwhile, those countries have a higher burglary rate than the United States. Germany has far fewer people serving sentences for more than one year, but it also has a higher crime rate per 100,000 residents than the United States.

Edited June 29, 2012 by grbeck

[Mark B. Morrow]

Grbeck, I don't think gang violence explains our high rate of incarceration. We jail people for long periods of time for drug crimes and property crimes. One of the reasons I support decriminalization of pot is that we spend 100s of millions keeping pot growers, sellers and users in jail.

[Edstock]

Grbeck, I don't think gang violence explains our high rate of incarceration.

 

Of course. Goppers don't want to understand that when they send somebody to jail, that person is removed from being a support to their kin and family. Thus poverty is perpetuated and more crime and more people in jail. This justifies lots of things, like the perpetuation of something that doesn't work: the bottom third of American society is falling apart while the Goppers howl for police-state security to make it happen even faster.

 

It's a growth industry for now (I wonder about sustainability), to the delight of Wackenhut and others in the prison business. IIRC, their contracts specify something like 85% capacity. Will this result in state governments establishing quotas?

[napfirst]

The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of its prison population. If "the overwhelming majority people in jail belong there", and the US has around 5X the prison population of other countries, it seems that you have acquired a societal problem.

 

The real question is, is it sustainable? Also, what will happen when South American countries give up on the War on Drugs and do a Portugal?

And yet we are building fences to keep people out of this country ....and line to immigrate is several years long.....people still want to be here.....imagine that!

[fmccap]

http://www.naturalnews.com/036341_Obamacare_new_taxes_mandate.html

 

It's also the largest tax increase in the history of the United States. By upholding Obamacare's individual mandate as a "tax," Chief Justice Robert just labeled President Obama the largest tax increase President in the history of the country!

But now, of course, Chief Justice Roberts has declared it IS a tax, after all. Thus, Obama's key legislative achievement has become the single greatest legislative deception in the history of America.

[RangerM]

This "same penalty for everyone regardless of income status" sounds a lot like the argument we were having on taxes on a different thread - and seems like a simplistic adherence to ideo-logic semantics rather than anything truly fair to me. Anything truly fair would account for circumstances.

 

You've ignored the context.

 

I was responding to the assertion that the "tax" is a penalty. If it were truly a penalty, then it would apply equally to everyone. It doesn't.

 

It is a tax.

[retro-man]

You've ignored the context.

 

I was responding to the assertion that the "tax" is a penalty. If it were truly a penalty, then it would apply equally to everyone. It doesn't.

 

It is a tax.

Is the penalty for not insuring applied unevenly? As I understand it the penalty to an individual for not insuring ones self is a paltry $95.00 in 2014, rising to a less paltry $695.00 in 2016, regardless of your circumstances. I thought you (and John Roberts) were terming the mandatory enrollment itself - or rather the resultant premiums to be paid - the "tax". Wasn't that the gist of the decision?

[xr7g428]

It is the greater of 1% of your income but not less than $95 to start rising to 2.5% in the future. It also calls for a much broader assessment of what constitutes income.

[mettech]

It will be interesting to see if some insurance companies start mirror trim levels in cars for insurance cost.

 

Examples:

 

S= everyone elgiable... minimum coverage mandated by law... no physical required... high (normal)premiums

 

SE= (S package plus): non smokers and no long term health issues.. general physical every 18 months required..10% lower premiums

 

SEL= (SE package plus): EKG and MRI required.. must meet weight and BMI requirements.. minimal hazardous job..... must belong to health club.... Additional 12% lower premiums

 

Titanium= (SEL package plus): Proof of no hereditary diseases in family history... proof of 5 days/week physical training.. every 6 months full physical... Additional 8% lower premiums

[cal50]

An interesting opinion on the courts ruling-

 

Cut & paste:

 

 

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

 

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

[RangerM]

There are two other aspects to consider.

 

The fact that it's now defined exclusively as a tax, means that it can be repealed as a budgetary item. During the Reconciliation process this only requires a 51 vote majority in the Senate (which could include the Vice President in the case of a tie).

 

The other thing to consider is apportionment. The Obamacare tax is a "direct tax", meaning that it applies to the individual and not on a transaction (like a sales tax), nor does is seem to be an income tax, since it is fixed, assessed on being alive and not exclusively on the basis of income. According to the Constitution, all direct taxes shall be apportioned to the States according to population. The only exception to this is the income tax under the 16th Amendment. (and since the Obamacare tax is not a true income tax, it is not covered by the 16th Amendment) Right now, no taxes have been collected, and under existing law ("Anti-injunction" I think it's called) a tax cannot be challenged until after it's been assessed (or collected--I'm not sure which)

 

Once the tax has been assessed (or collected), a case can be made that the revenues aren't apportioned under Article I because the revenues aren't dispersed among the states on the basis of population, making it Unconstitutional. Collections won't begin for a few years, however. So hopefully, it can be repealed and replaced with something better in the meantime.

Edited June 30, 2012 by RangerM

[Bored of Pisteon]

The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of its prison population. If "the overwhelming majority people in jail belong there", and the US has around 5X the prison population of other countries, it seems that you have acquired a societal problem.

 

The real question is, is it sustainable? Also, what will happen when South American countries give up on the War on Drugs and do a Portugal?

 

Why are people continuing to pay taxes so these rotten low-lifes that are serving life sentences in prison, or lesser terms for violent crimes? BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY!!! AND SAVE PLENTY OF MONEY ON TAXES! There is no excuse on why society should continue to subsidize these habitual, repeat offenders who are unfit and cannot rehabilate back into society.

[Langston Hughes]

Why are people continuing to pay taxes so these rotten low-lifes that are serving life sentences in prison, or lesser terms for violent crimes? BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY!!! AND SAVE PLENTY OF MONEY ON TAXES! There is no excuse on why society should continue to subsidize these habitual, repeat offenders who are unfit and cannot rehabilate back into society.

 

Yes, we should do this, because after all the justice system in America is so perfect that we don't often have admit that we have jailed and even killed innocents. I am in favor of removing all capital punishment in America and paying for the life terms of what you call lowlifes so that we don't put another innocent person on death row or allow them to be killed. Taxes be damned not my soul.

[Edstock]

so these rotten low-lifes that are serving life sentences in prison, or lesser terms for violent crimes? BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY!!!

 

Funny how extreme Left and extreme Right people both love executing people. Makes 'em feel so righteous. It's good to feel righteous, especially after the DNA shows the schmuck didn't do it.

 

The point is, those that you are complaining about are a minority of the prison population, most of whom are put away for relatively minor offences. Shoot 'em all, and you still have a gigantic prisoner-bloat.

 

That's because the War On Drugs is a failure. The drug sales continue. The DEA has jobs, and a vested interest in keeping things as they are, just like Wackenhut and the rest. The number of rent-a-cops now exceeds the number of US municipal police.

 

It's a multi-billion dollar pork barrel that produces nothing but grief and misery, and righteous cries to stuff even more people behind bars.

 

As I asked before, the question is, is it sustainable? For how long? Is there a tipping-point? Is it the Gopper War on Hispanics?

[retro-man]

Good article in The New Yorker on the history of the mandate - for those who are prone to forget or to obfuscate: LINK

 

This shift—Democrats lining up behind the Republican-crafted mandate, and Republicans declaring it not just inappropriate policy but contrary to the wishes of the Founders—shocked Wyden. “I would characterize the Washington, D.C., relationship with the individual mandate as truly schizophrenic,” he said.

 

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein#ixzz1zIZWdtGh

Edited June 30, 2012 by retro-man