Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

[Yukon Cornelius]

Oh okay. I love you some of you guys think you have a better understanding and interpretation of the Congress with those who have a different one. I thought liberals were supposed to be elitist and arrogant?

 

If you choose to not buy health insurance, then by the entire definition of the words "making a decision" you are not being passive at all. Rather, you are actively choosing to risk a future health emergency that will cause providers to pass higher costs on to people who do buy insurance.

 

Sure, tea in colonial times, affordable health insurance today, it's all the same. Logic FAIL.

 

 

did you get your GED ?

[Caveman_Nick]

Which part? You guys crack me up. This isn't a bill of rights issue, which restricts governmental power. Here, we're talking about a part of the Constitution that affirmatively grants Congress wide powers to "regulate Commerce... among the several states." Question: which section of the Constitution prohibits the government from making people pay for services they consume? Answer: the section you're imagining.

 

Look, it get it: you don't like the law. You think it's unfair. If offends your traditional notions of small government and individualism. But that isn't the litmus test for what is or is not "unconstitutional." Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't address this issue. That means the judicial system will be tasked with job. Therefore, whatever result unfolds will be the result of "judicial activism." This is merely YOUR brand of judicial activism. So please don't piss on my shoes and tell me its raining.

 

Er....

 

I'll say again: I wasn't the one that judged the law unconstitutional

 

My brand of judicial activism? If Judicial activism is a Judge determining that a law is unconstitutional, then yes it is my brand. In my book that's not activism. In my book Judicial activism typically starts with "This law really covers all these other areas that it wasn't intended to, because there ought to be a law covering that." or "As a society, we really need to consider doing 'Blah'", which is the job of the Congress.

 

I prefer when the branches do their jobs.

 

Lastly, regardless of my position on the particular law, you are discounting and ignoring my stated recognition of a problem and support of a solution, perhaps in an effort to use a witty pissing on shoes reference that you've been saving for months. That said, insurance is not a consumable service as you would like to deem it. It's a use it or lose it service. It's not popcorn. It's not an oil change, a landscaping service, or a delivery service. It's a thing you put money into to defer costs in case you use it. Different ball of wax.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Caveman_Nick

[gbpfan1231]

did you get your GED ?

Do you have any humor?

[bushwacked]

Yeah, because I was the one who judged the law unconstitutional

 

Oh...wait...

 

And other judges have upheld it, that's sure convenient that you completely dismiss their rulings and treat the most recent one as gospel. Why is that?

Edited February 1, 2011 by bushwacked

[Ursa Majoris]

That said, insurance is not a consumable service as you would like to deem it. It's a use it or lose it service. It's not popcorn. It's not an oil change, a landscaping service, or a delivery service. It's a thing you put money into to defer costs in case you use it. Different ball of wax.

Still commerce though, right?

[Big John]

did you get your GED ?

UWM grad

[Caveman_Nick]

Still commerce though, right?

 

Of course it is.

 

I was merely nit-picking a nit-picker Yo Mama made a reference to making people pay for services they consume and Insurance is clearly not a service that everyone consumes on a regular basis. It's a service that we pay for in case we need it, and typically it's the people that are paying when they don't need it who are footing the bill for the people that do need it.

[yo mama]

Er....

 

I'll say again: I wasn't the one that judged the law unconstitutional

 

My brand of judicial activism? If Judicial activism is a Judge determining that a law is unconstitutional, then yes it is my brand. In my book that's not activism. In my book Judicial activism typically starts with "This law really covers all these other areas that it wasn't intended to, because there ought to be a law covering that." or "As a society, we really need to consider doing 'Blah'", which is the job of the Congress.

 

I prefer when the branches do their jobs.

 

Lastly, regardless of my position on the particular law, you are discounting and ignoring my stated recognition of a problem and support of a solution, perhaps in an effort to use a witty pissing on shoes reference that you've been saving for months. That said, insurance is not a consumable service as you would like to deem it. It's a use it or lose it service. It's not popcorn. It's not an oil change, a landscaping service, or a delivery service. It's a thing you put money into to defer costs in case you use it. Different ball of wax.

I didn't say you were the judge who did. But I am accusing you of glossing over what the Constitution *actually* says merely because the judge got the result you wanted. And I'm singling you out because you, above all others, carp the loudest about upholding the Constitution.

 

By analogy, in the much the same way that I do not like guns I nevertheless reluctantly recognize and defend the 2nd Amendment. Because if one part of the Constitution becomes vulnerable the entire things is at risk. If you truly are a defender of Constitution then it should matter less what the end result of any issue is because it's the process that's important. Here, I would urge you to reevaluate your your position on the health care law in light of what the Commerce Clause actually says, rather than the what you think it should say. That is all.

Edited February 1, 2011 by yo mama

[Azazello1313]

the problem with the law isn't that it requires everyone to take financial responsibility for their own care, in the form of an individual mandate. well apparently it's a constitutional problem, but it's not really an economic problem or a political problem (for me) per se.

 

the problem is that the health care law requires insurers to cover people at a hugh loss. the problem is that it specifically ALLOWS millions MORE people to freeload on the "responsible people with insurance". pretty comical to see the apologists talking about it like it's some bold new way to encourage individual responsibility. the law allows people to wait until they are sick, then buy insurance at the same rate as someone who has been paying for insurance all along. the apparently unconstitutional individual mandate is just the ineffectual little way the health care law tries to push back against the massively distorted perverse incentives to freeload that the rest of the law creates. even with the mandate in effect, it would still make economic sense for younger, healthier people to just ride it out with no insurance until they need insurance, the meager penalty has little overall effect. and then they tried to duct-tape over THAT problem by adding in the employer mandate, and ITS meager penalty for non-compliance (not to mention all the waivers and exemptions). the whole thing is just one dumb premise piled on another.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Azazello1313

[bpwallace49]

UWM grad

 

that explains it.

 

 

And I cant WAIT for the Thunderdome deathmatch between Ed Hoyle and gbpfan from that thread. Please post when the date and time are established for that one . . . .TIA

[yo mama]

the problem with the law isn't that it requires everyone to take financial responsibility for their own care, in the form of an individual mandate. well apparently it's a constitutional problem, but it's not really an economic problem or a political problem (for me) per se.

 

the problem is that the health care law requires insurers to cover people at a hugh loss. the problem is that it specifically ALLOWS millions MORE people to freeload on the "responsible people with insurance". pretty comical to see the apologists talking about it like it's some bold new way to encourage individual responsibility. the law allows people to wait until they are sick, then buy insurance at the same rate as someone who has been paying for insurance all along. the apparently unconstitutional individual mandate is just the ineffectual little way the health care law tries to push back against the massively distorted perverse incentives to freeload that the rest of the law creates. even with the mandate in effect, it would still make economic sense for younger, healthier people to just ride it out with no insurance until they need insurance, the meager penalty has little overall effect. and then they tried to duct-tape over THAT problem by adding in the employer mandate, and ITS meager penalty for non-compliance (not to mention all the waivers and exemptions). the whole thing is just one dumb premise piled on another.

I share your frustration with the mechanics of how the current law works. There has to be a better way. My (perhaps myopic) point is merely to cement the notion that Congress has the Commerce Clause powers to address the multi-faceted health care/health insurance problems that we all agree exist. But I agree that the current law is severely flawed.

Edited February 1, 2011 by yo mama

[cliaz]

And other judges have upheld it, that's sure convenient that you completely dismiss their rulings and treat the most recent one as gospel. Why is that?

 

It goes both ways though.

 

Still commerce though, right?

 

It is not commerce. Insurance is not a good that is sold and bought. It is a form of financial accountability where one entity will provide you with coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril. Insurance is regulated at the state level except for the National Flood Insurance program supported by the federal government.

 

In the case of the National Flood Insurance program, the insurance companies and the state regulatory bodies determined that flood damage is not part of the normal home owners insurance and that they would not cover costs. Since there was never a program put in place the federal government uses the NFPP to enforce no development in flood zones and offers to cover the costs for the insurance. It is not mandated that everyone purchase the flood insurance; however, you are free to do so. Only individuals with structures in B & C flood zones must purchase the insurance or else the mortgage companies will not lend money for a mortgage. Even then, you do not have to purchase the insurance, you just would not be able to get a federal backed loan for the house.

[bushwacked]

It goes both ways though.

 

Nick was acting like this was the only ruling on the law thus far.

[cliaz]

Nick was acting like this was the only ruling on the law thus far.

 

to be honest, i just saw your name and wanted to throw a Bisexual remark in there

[Caveman_Nick]

And other judges have upheld it, that's sure convenient that you completely dismiss their rulings and treat the most recent one as gospel. Why is that?

 

Because it is the one that takes precedent

 

I haven't been on here decrying this law as unconstitutional. I haven't been saying anything about it. If it is ruled unconstitutional then it will almost certainly go upstream. Didn't you expect this law to eventually get in front of the SCOTUS with so many states suing over it? This is far from over either way. And if the SCOTUS says it's all good, then it's all good. If it never makes it in front of them because it's all good, then I won't be on here whining about it.

 

I'll happily whine about any 1000+ page bill that's voted on by people that didn't read it, though. You should too.

[yo mama]

It is not commerce. Insurance is not a good that is sold and bought.

Oh, let's not be obtuse. Commerce isn't limited to goods. And this issue isn't limited to insurance. Goods and services related to providing health care also stand center stage.

[TimC]

I was watching an Amish documentary on Netflix and it struck me how they don't have insurance because, if a disaster strikes, everyone helps everyone else.

[Caveman_Nick]

I didn't say you were the judge who did. But I am accusing you of glossing over what the Constitution *actually* says merely because the judge got the result you wanted. And I'm singling you out because you, above all others, carp the loudest about upholding the Constitution.

 

By analogy, in the much the same way that I do not like guns I nevertheless reluctantly recognize and defend the 2nd Amendment. Because if one part of the Constitution becomes vulnerable the entire things is at risk. If you truly are a defender of Constitution then it should matter less what the end result of any issue is because it's the process that's important. Here, I would urge you to reevaluate your your position on the health care law in light of what the Commerce Clause actually says, rather than the what you think it should say. That is all.

 

I think my other response addresses this. I am not jumping up and down with delight over this ruling as you seem to think. My original response was merely that I am happy that there is a judge looking at the law to determine if it is constitutional because that's what they should be doing. If it's determined to be, then so be it. I'm fine with it so long as the system's doing it's job as intended.

 

Why do you ignore my point about Congress rushing this bill through without reading or thoroughly understanding it? How on this earth could they even know that what they were putting forth indeed was within their powers if they didn't read it?

[cliaz]

Oh, let's not be obtuse. Commerce isn't limited to goods. And this issue isn't limited to insurance. Goods and services related to providing health care also stand center stage.

 

Actually, the whole issue at hand is related to the insurance and the goods and services related to providing health care take a back seat to this. Congress does not have the authority (legally) to enforce a mandate for everyone that can afford it to purchase health insurance. That is the root issue with the health care reform. Interstate commerce clause does not grant Congress the authority to enforce this program. Insurance is regulated at the state level.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am for everyone receiving health care but the way it has been done is unconstitutional and needs to be corrected in order to move forward.

[SEC=UGA]

Oh, let's not be obtuse. Commerce isn't limited to goods. And this issue isn't limited to insurance. Goods and services related to providing health care also stand center stage.

 

If hookers and blow can be regulated under the commerce clause, then, by god, so can healthcare!!!!!!!!!

[Azazello1313]

My (perhaps myopic) point is merely to cement the notion that Congress has the Commerce Clause powers to address the multi-faceted health care/health insurance problems that we all agree exist.

 

they have that power to some extent, but they don't have carte blanche. as we are seeing now in the courts...

[yo mama]

I think my other response addresses this. I am not jumping up and down with delight over this ruling as you seem to think. My original response was merely that I am happy that there is a judge looking at the law to determine if it is constitutional because that's what they should be doing. If it's determined to be, then so be it. I'm fine with it so long as the system's doing it's job as intended.

 

Why do you ignore my point about Congress rushing this bill through without reading or thoroughly understanding it? How on this earth could they even know that what they were putting forth indeed was within their powers if they didn't read it?

Like I said to Az, perhaps I'm being myopic. The only issue I stand firm on is that Congress has the power to address the issue. Am I offended that this law got passed without anyone reading it? Yes. I had the same frustration when the Patriot Act was passed. But the reality is that senators vote on stuff they haven't read all the time. I guess I have a hard time mustering outrage because it's simply par for the course.

[Caveman_Nick]

Like I said to Az, perhaps I'm being myopic. The only issue I stand firm on is that Congress has the power to address the issue. Am I offended that this law got passed without anyone reading it? Yes. I had the same frustration when the Patriot Act was passed. But the reality is that senators vote on stuff they haven't read all the time. I guess I have a hard time mustering outrage because it's simply par for the course.

 

I agree 100% that they have the power to address the issue, but hold that there are bounds to the extent to which they can. I think that's in agreement with what Az is saying.

[yo mama]

they have that power to some extent, but they don't have carte blanche. as we are seeing now in the courts...

In all fairness, there's only one court who said so. Prior courts have gone the other way. A wise man once said, "I won't pretend to be an expert." Perhaps that's sage advice for all of us because the USSC will likely decide this one based on ideology.

 

ETA - this is actually the second case to hold the law unconstitutional. So it looks like the pitch count is 2-2, with cases being appealed to the 4th, 6th, and 11th circuit courts of appeal.

 

I can't make the case for why Obamacare is constitutional any better than these guys. Their conclusion is essentially the same as mine - while the law is clearly flawed, it is likely constitutional based on CURRENT jurisprudence. But that's not to say the USSC can't change it's mind.

Edited February 1, 2011 by yo mama

[Savage Beatings]

If you choose to not buy health insurance, then by the entire definition of the words "making a decision" you are not being passive at all. Rather, you are actively choosing to risk a future health emergency that will cause providers to pass higher costs on to people who do buy insurance.

 

 

I guess all of us right now are engaging in pedophilia, rape, murder, necrophilia, and jay walking as well. What a joke! You freaking Libs will stop at nothing. Look at the contortion you have to go through to try to justify crap like this. Why can't you just admit that the Federal mandate is wrong?