Obamacare and the courts

[henryclay]

[In Florida Federal Court Judge] Vinson minces the arguments that health care is “unique,” and therefore the individual mandate is “uniquely justified.” The defendants argued that the mandate is necessary because (a) all people get sick eventually, and therefore can’t opt out of the health care market; (b) hospitals are required to provide health care services, regardless of a patient’s ability to pay; and (c) patients who obtain uncompensated care shift the cost of that care to others, thereby engaging in economic activity.

On the first point, that people can’t opt out of the health care market, Vinson points out that there are lots of markets people can’t opt out of, like the market for food, or the market for transportation, or the market for housing. Are mandates appropriate in those areas? (p. 46):

There are lots of markets — especially if defined broadly enough — that people cannot “opt out” of. For example, everyone must participate in the food market. Instead of attempting to control wheat supply by regulating the acreage and amount of wheat a farmer could grow as in Wickard, under this logic, Congress could more directly raise too low wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread adversely affect prices in the wheat market. Or, as was discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system. Similarly, because virtually no one can be divorced from the transportation market, Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.

I pause here to emphasize that the foregoing is not an irrelevant and fanciful “parade of horribles.” Rather, these are some of the serious concerns implicated by the individual mandate that are being discussed and debated by legal scholars. For example, in the course of defending the Constitutionality of the individual mandate, and responding to the same concerns identified above, often-cited law professor and dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law Erwin Chemerinsky has opined that although “what people choose to eat well might be regarded as a personal liberty” (and thus unregulable), “Congress could use its commerce power to require people to buy cars”…When I mentioned this to the defendants’ attorney at oral argument, he allowed for the possibility that “maybe Dean Chemerinsky is right.” See Tr. at 69. Therefore, the potential for this assertion of power has received at least some theoretical consideration and has not been ruled out as Constitutionally implausible.

[billisonboard]

[glow=red,2,300]Welcome[/glow]

[vonnie6200]

Well _ I've read thru these a couple of times and I have areas I could pick an argument with - but I do not know what your point is actually.

[vonnie6200]

BoB

Where do you get these - I totally enjoyed it - great clip.

[billisonboard]

Feb 5, 2011 19:28:52 GMT -5 vonnie6200 said:

BoB

Where do you get these - I totally enjoyed it - great clip.

I google the name of the song or sometimes it works to type in a few lyrics (this one I did that since I didn't remember the proper title). If fortune smiles, a youtube clip comes up. I go to it. Below the image you see above, is a little "embed" button. I click that to make sure that it isn't copyright protected - it says it is or it give some numbers/letters/symbols/junk. If it isn't copyrighted I go up to the top of the screen and copy the address. I then come back here and on the thread I wish to post it on I hit either the quote if I am responding directly to a message or reply if not. I then hit the "add tags" button that has the red with "tube" in the middle. That gives me this [ youtube][/youtube] (without the space after the first "[" - I did that so it would appear here). I then paste the address of the youtube clip between the ]['s. I usually hit the preview box to make sure it has worked and then I post it.

EDIT:

This board is [glow=green,2,300]SOOO[/glow]

[billisonboard]

[shadow=blue,left,300]AND THEN[/shadow]

RIP

[henryclay]

. . . . "but I do not know what your point is actually."
My point is that our electeds in Washington, , , , and especially led by Obama during the last session of Congress, , , , has finally pushed the envelope out of shape and the Federal Judiciary has started to haul them in. So what the article says is that if "you" can't mandate that your neighbor, who is an American citizen, buy a particular item against his Constitutional free will, then neither can Obama or the Congress.
The entire article can be reviewed at:
www.nationalreview.com/agenda/258514/florida-v-hhs-could-become-landmark-individual-liberty-avik-roy

[billisonboard]

Feb 5, 2011 19:49:39 GMT -5 henryclay said:

. . . . "but I do not know what your point is actually."
My point is that our electeds in Washington, , , , and especially led by Obama during the last session of Congress, , , , has finally pushed the envelope out of shape and the Federal Judiciary has started to haul them in. So what the article says is that if "you" can't mandate that your neighbor, who is an American citizen, buy a particular item against his Constitutional free will, then neither can Obama or the Congress.
The entire article can be reviewed at:
www.nationalreview.com/agenda/258514/florida-v-hhs-could-become-landmark-individual-liberty-avik-roy

thanks for the cite. I googled it but got pieces of it from all over the place.

[vonnie6200]

Feb 5, 2011 19:49:39 GMT -5 henryclay said:

. . . . "but I do not know what your point is actually."
My point is that our electeds in Washington, , , , and especially led by Obama during the last session of Congress, , , , has finally pushed the envelope out of shape and the Federal Judiciary has started to haul them in. So what the article says is that if "you" can't mandate that your neighbor, who is an American citizen, buy a particular item against his Constitutional free will, then neither can Obama or the Congress.
The entire article can be reviewed at:
www.nationalreview.com/agenda/258514/florida-v-hhs-could-become-landmark-individual-liberty-avik-roy

Well durn it - I totally agree with you - sorry I didn't get your message!

[vonnie6200]

Feb 5, 2011 19:38:54 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 5, 2011 19:28:52 GMT -5 vonnie6200 said:

BoB

Where do you get these - I totally enjoyed it - great clip.

I google the name of the song or sometimes it works to type in a few lyrics (this one I did that since I didn't remember the proper title). If fortune smiles, a youtube clip comes up. I go to it. Below the image you see above, is a little "embed" button. I click that to make sure that it isn't copyright protected - it says it is or it give some numbers/letters/symbols/junk. If it isn't copyrighted I go up to the top of the screen and copy the address. I then come back here and on the thread I wish to post it on I hit either the quote if I am responding directly to a message or reply if not. I then hit the "add tags" button that has the red with "tube" in the middle. That gives me this [ youtube][/youtube] (without the space after the first "[" - I did that so it would appear here). I then paste the address of the youtube clip between the ]['s. I usually hit the preview box to make sure it has worked and then I post it.

EDIT:

This board is [glow=green,2,300]SOOO[/glow]

LOL - I may disappear for a while and just listen to old songs !!

Loved it.

[Deleted]

Hello, henry! Welcome. Good article. The best I heard said was that as far as the commerce clause goes- while it MAY be able to force an activity one is engaged in, it cannot regulate an INactivity-- they are trying to say it can. On many levels I think this bill is dead.
My gripe now is the delay of getting it to the Supreme, which is not necessary, while in the meantime states are spending money preparing, businesses don't know WHAT to do, medical costs, including insurance premiums, are going through the roof, and this not knowing is really hurting the economy. This needs to be resolved NOW, not after the 2012 elections so Dems can use it to say Pubs are trying to KILL everyone by taking away their (future) health care.
Plus-- we are having health care issues in this country, and the sooner we start over and address it realistically (and transparently) the better.