Why do people care if the Mandate provision is heard by the US Supreme Court?

[AllentownJake]

Honestly, I for one, would like the court to hear this. Not because I'm against the provision (I am) but because mandating the purchase of a private product where no active choice is involved is an unprecedented increase in federal powers and I would like for the extent of that power, if it exists to be clearly defined for future precedents not involving this particular bill.

[donheld]

1. It would be my fear that the Roberts court

would come down on the side of Business rather than that of the people

[Donnachaidh]

3. we've already gotten screwed by business, thanks to this bill

what's the difference?

[donheld]

11. The difference is

Having the supreme court say it's perfectly ok, rather than pulling the screwer off we the people.

[nightrain]

27. knr. The difference is the setting of a precedent. If it is ruled legal to

mandate the purchase of a private corporation's product (insurance), what's to stop the next mandate? Such as, privatizing Social Security, forcing people to transfer retirement funds to private corporations, privatizing Medicare, or other public services/programs etc.

It's another move toward/in corporate control/influence in government, i.e., fascism. Have you heard Rahm and Zeke Emanuel's views on privatization of Medicare?

It's an extremely dangerous precedent. If, as it seems, that Obama is in favor of this route, you can kiss a public single payer or Social Security bye-bye.

Personally, I am quite concerned with the advice Obama is getting from both of these brothers.

[AllentownJake]

30. Education as well

The President is making dangerous moves in that realm as well as concerned with private charter schools.

[nightrain]

31. yes. good addition. Privatization can happen in so many areas if this

precedent goes forth.

[AllentownJake]

33. The President does seem to have embraced fascist principles on some issues

Merging state and corporate power, why I laugh when people call him a socialist.

[nightrain]

38. yep. People often get that distinction confused.

[AllentownJake]

41. Privatising state systems and turning them over to a private entity

and than giving them government payments collected by taxes is not socialism, I try to explain that to Right Wingers, they seem not to get it.

[AllentownJake]

5. They are the court

and this does have business applications as well, since corporations are persons, and therefore a similar provision could be adopted on them for some other circumstances. The Robert's court is aware of the flip side and any ruling could be used as such precedent.

[elehhhhna]

13. The Scalia/ Thomas wing is probably hunting & fishing w/ the ins. bigshots right now

[donheld]

15. You can guarantee it.

[timeforpeace]

42. But that wing hasn't just guaranteed that the ins bigshots can now afford even better vacations.Your

misdirection failed.

[boston bean]

2. I think it's a fascinating constitutional argument.

I think the argument against a mandate (pvt. insurance mandate) has substance.

[Doctor_J]

4. Not until a few fascists on the SCOTUS have been replaced

The current court hates individual rights, except for gun possession and ownership.

[AllentownJake]

7. They are the legally appointed members of the court

Appointed by a President and confirmed by the Senate. I have a bumper sticker that says I'm a constitution voter from the ACLU, I don't make exceptions because I don't like the judges who were put there legally.

[Doctor_J]

12. Thomas and Scalito, at a minimum, lied at their conformation hearings

therefore impeachment is a viable alternative.

Also, your point doesn't address mine. Sending this issue to SCOTUS right now would guarantee a win for Big Capital, and a loss for actual Americans.

[mzmolly]

6. What about auto insurance? I do think you have a point about the constitutional aspect.

Though, it seems to me it's been done before.

[AllentownJake]

8. Auto insurance is a licensure and registration issue

to use public roads, it has nothing to do with this provision as far as precedent, you can own and drive a car without insurance, you just can't use public roads.

[mzmolly]

9. Hmmmmmmmmmm

:freak: I'll have to think on that a bit.

[kirby]

50. It is also a State issue, not Federal. n/t

[Oregone]

22. A couple things on that to think about (not necessarily constitutional)

Firstly, a driver enters the marketplace, not by force, when they seek to become a driver. There is no mandate forcing people to drive, but rather, just drive insured. This health mandate actually forces citizens to engage in commerce and become a consumer of a specific industry. That aside...

Just from a logical perspective, if auto insurance wasn't mandated, don't you think that the liability of allowing people to drive would fall primarily on the state, and licensing conditions would be much more stringent? Think about it...they are essentially putting a bunch of loaded weapons out there each time they license someone to drive. If that person wasn't required to get insurance, the state would probably have to be far, far, far more stringent about who was and who wasn't allowed to drive. Mandating insurance for autos essentially allows most consumers to choose to drive by passing very basic tests (which is good for the economy and helps the general welfare more than limiting those allowed to drive). Mandating drivers get insurance actually *promotes* freedom by allowing more people to make the choice to drive. Otherwise, the state may have to make sure only the most perfect drivers are on the road, to protect the most people.

[AllentownJake]

24. Yes an absolves the State of penalizing people

Because if you are a shitty driver, the private marketplace smacks you with an additional fine the state does not have to pass.

Which is why Health Insurance is an awful way to solve Health Care. Because you don't make any choices to be born with Cererbal Palsy, MS, or other ailments.

[mzmolly]

25. Excellent

points.

[EVDebs]

54. Eighth amendment of Bill of Rights prevents

Eighth amendment of Bill of Rights prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

One could make the argument that forcing an unemployed person to forfeit a 20% portion of any unemployment benefit payment in order to obtain 'health insurance' (whatever that means) obstructs that person from obtaining health CARE (and we do know what that means).

If the GOP wants to sue let them. Counter sue.

[Kansas Wyatt]

49. There are NO laws requiring full coverage auto insurance. Only liability coverage.

The auto insurance argument is BS, because NOBODY requires you to insure your own property against loss/damage.

Only damage done to others, if you even chose to drive. Oh, and a contract with a loan company is an agreement between you and that company, not a law.

[EVDebs]

55. State insurance regulators are supposed to regulate this 'industry' in the first place

What happened ?

[JoeyT]

58. I don't know why that's so hard for people to understand.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Living is a right, not a privilege.
The mandate isn't comparable to auto insurance in any way, shape, or form.

[Hydra]

10. I'd like to see this happen

But the chances are SCOTUS will rule in favor of the Gov't having this particular power.

Our system is fabulously broken. In 5 years, I bet it will be seamlessly broken- it will be like a mobius strip where each branch reinforces the other in the name of corporate profit.

[Thickasabrick]

14. I'm looking forward to it although with the current mix of the court -

I fear the new precedent will take the opposite view that I have - which is that the mandates to buy a private industry product is unconstitutional. I'm sure it will be very close either way.

[AllentownJake]

16. You may be surprised

In that the 4 liberal judges rule against the provision and the 5 conservatives rule for it.

[Thickasabrick]

23. Do you not think Justice Kennedy might be a possible cross-over? nt

[AllentownJake]

26. Who knows, they may decide not to hear it at all

Scalia and Thomas could rule with Ginsberg and Breyer with Roberts, Alito, Sotomayer, and Kennedy voting in favor for the provision or it could be 9-0 for the provision or 9-0 against.

It all is determined by the legal arguments, I expect the court to hear this though, because at its core, this is an expansion of federal powers and the court typically gets involved in those cases.

[harun]

62. I think it will go to the courts and I hope it does soon. Next puke president

and congress will slap "war mandates" on us.

[ProSense]

17. "Honestly, I for one, would like the court to hear this." Prepare

to be disappointed.

[AllentownJake]

18. So Robert Shapiro says so, I guess he was good for OJ

I'll wait till the case hits the court system.

[ProSense]

19. Mass. Supreme Court dimissed a similar case

Figures that you'd focus on the trite.

:rofl:

[AllentownJake]

21. That was a State Court

10th amendment and all.

:rofl:

[AllentownJake]

20. Oops wrong Bob Shapiro

:rofl:

Seriously, you've been insanely wrong on the public option, we'll see where this goes.

[nightrain]

28. is it "federal powers" to be afraid of, or "corporate" powers?

[AllentownJake]

29. Well the merger of the two has a name nt.

[nightrain]

32. yes, but "federal" powers increasing is different than "corporate", no?

the socialism/communism vs fascism difference, right?

[AllentownJake]

34. Using the Federal powers to increase corporate/business powers is fascism

Seeing that we are fighting two wars right now that are not self defense related, it is not surprising. It is needed to continue to finance such operations.

[nightrain]

39. okay. I see where you're going with it... I agree.

[grahamhgreen]

35. Next mandate will be to buy cable TV.

[treestar]

36. Which provision of the Constitution does it violate?

Why wouldn't the commerce clause support it?

[AllentownJake]

40. Well

You aren't regulating commerce, you are forcing someone to engage in commerce who wasn't. That would be one for starters.

[treestar]

56. Show how that conclusion could come from the case law on

interstate commerce. Those cases generally say anything that affects interstate commerce can be regulated.

[AllentownJake]

57. Yes you are failing to see the point

There is no precedent to force someone into a market for the simple fact that they are alive. There is precedent to tax and provide, there is no precedent that you must buy something simply because you meet an income threshold and you are breathing.

[treestar]

63. That doesn't mean it won't fit prior precedent

I don't know how it will turn out, but it will turn on case law not considered on this board. IOW, no one knows what they hell they are talking about!

[varelse]

37. I would like this decided one way or another, as soon as possible

the longer the decision is put off, the more expensive it would be if the law (or portions of it) were reversed.

[AllentownJake]

43. There will be a multitude of lawsuit filed as soon as the bill is signed

The Supreme Court will make a decision whether to hear it immediately or to allow it to work through the lower courts. The Court will also pick which case to hear and thus the constitutional question they wish to address.

Lawyers on both sides are writing legal briefs probably as soon as Christmas is over on several provisions.

[varelse]

44. I sincerely hope the Supreme Court will decide to hear this immediately

The cost of delay would be too high, imo - even if they uphold every part of the law, it's better to get that out of the way now.

[AllentownJake]

45. They probably will if they intend to hear it

They just have to wait till a party presents a lawsuit objecting to a provision. The Supreme Court has the ability to bypass all lower courts on federal lawsuits, so it wouldn't surprise me if this was being briefed by their clerks the minute it is signed into law.

[xchrom]

46. I'm a believer in strong goverment -

But i'm not a believer in dumb mergers between
goverment and a business that's out of control.

Now if we want to regulate along the lines of
public utilities -- the conversation can begin.

[eleny]

47. How fast they take this case would tell a lot

[johnaries]

48. I would like for SCOTUS to consider it, just to settle the matter.

I support some type of mandate, because that's the only way to achieve Universal Health Care Access. I would prefer the mandate be via taxes that pay for a single-payer system, or that at least that if we have a mandate we have a Public Option. The State not-for-profit co-ops are supposed to perform the same function as the PO, but they will not be as effective as evidenced by past attempts. Which is why I think we will eventually get a PO to replace the co-ops.

However, most of the claims of unConstituionality do not come from law, but from the same RW talking points that have claimed that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are unConstitutional.

Of course, the difference is that the others are government programs. Perhaps the SCOTUS will make that distinction forcing the Senate to include a PO.

Wouldn't that be nice?

[AllentownJake]

51. Social Security and Medicare are government programs

that have Supreme Court rulings, the payments are made to the government, not to a financial services firm or insurance company.

[johnaries]

60. and yet the RW is making the same claims about their

unConstitutionality. And please note that I already made that distinction.

[AllentownJake]

61. The Right Wing are idiots

Arguing case law decided 73 years ago.

[Laelth]

52. It sets a terrible precedent. n/t

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[EVDebs]

53. Unregulated privatization (guaranteeing a corrupt profit) is tyranny

This is where we can join with the teabaggers. We need the choice of a public option in order to keep the unregulated free marketeer insurance oligopoly 'checked'.

[JoeyT]

59. Fear.

If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, there'll be no way to create a health insurance bill that makes the insurance companies happy. If the insurance companies aren't happy, there ain't gonna be a health insurance reformish (No really! We promise not to let you die anymore! Don't you trust us?) bill.

Edited to add: At least not from this administration and this batch of legislators.