__Bonk__ posted:

---

I hope it goes down in flames and is gutted by the courts

---

__Bonk__ posted:

---

If...

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Legislators that pass laws that violate the Constitution should be stripped of their right to pass laws.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

At the time no one thought it was unconstitutional. RWNs only latched onto the idea it's unconstitutinoal after they lost the legislative fight.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

It's not unconstitutional. At the time no one thought it was unconstitutional. RWNs only latched onto the idea it's unconstitutinoal after they lost the legislative fight.

---

IMHO posted:

---

Conservatives hate America. Overturning Obamacare proves this fact.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

The unconstitutionality angle was argued ad nauseum here on the Outpost prior to the passing of the bill.

---

Blue_arrow posted:

---

http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2010/10/obamacare-waivers.html

The United Federation of Teachers -- one of President Obama's key political backers -- is the biggest beneficiary of a White House sweetheart deal that will exempt certain outfits from complying with new health-care rules

Big labor spent millions of dollars pushing ObamaCare, which they made sure was stuffed full of union giveaways," said Patrick Semmens, spokesman for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which represents businesses.

"So the fact that the largest waiver now belongs to New York teachers union bosses might be funny if the rest of America wasn't stuck complying with the bill's onerous mandates."



What's the deal with anyone losing insurance? The selling point of ObamaCare was that no one would lose their coverage. Guess that turned out to be total crap.

---

Article posted:

---

Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees

---

The concept of the individual health insurance mandate is considered to have originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.

The authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
.
.
.Our cases show that the regulation of intrastate activities may be necessary to and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce in two general circumstances. Most directly, the commerce power permits Congress not only to devise rules for the governance of commerce between States but also to facilitate interstate commerce by eliminating potential obstructions, and to restrict it by eliminating potential stimulants. See NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 36—37 (1937). That is why the Court has repeatedly sustained congressional legislation on the ground that the regulated activities had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See, e.g., Hodel, supra, at 281 (surface coal mining); Katzenbach, supra, at 300 (discrimination by restaurants); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 258 (1964) (discrimination by hotels); Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S. 219, 237 (1948) (intrastate price-fixing); Board of Trade of Chicago v. Olsen, 262 U.S. 1, 40 (1923) (activities of a local grain exchange); Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495, 517, 524—525 (1922) (intrastate transactions at stockyard). Lopez and Morrison recognized the expansive scope of Congress’s authority in this regard: “[T]he pattern is clear. Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.” Lopez, supra, at 560; Morrison, supra, at 610 (same).
(…)
The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121.

IMHO posted:

---

Is it televised?

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

It's not unconstitutional. Republicans didn't think it was unconstitutional until they decided their only chance to defeat Obamacare was an activist Court.

Health insurance is commerce and the Feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce. That has long been established. There is no question that the Feds can institute national health care. That, too, has been long established. Think of Medicare. The Feds also have whatever powers they need to make their constitutional health insurance program work. That also has been long found to be constitutional. Obamacare cannot work without an individual mandate. (Or by an option like the public option that allows those opposed to being forced to buy private insurance to buy public insurance.) Therefore, since the rest of Obamacare is legitimate, and the mandate is necessary to make Obamacare work, the mandate is constitutional.

All this is long settled law. It would take a very activist Court to overturn decades of precedents and rulings to find the mandate unconstitutional. OIf course, we have one of the most activist Courts in history, so, who knows what will happen?

The authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
.
.
.Our cases show that the regulation of intrastate activities may be necessary to and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce in two general circumstances. Most directly, the commerce power permits Congress not only to devise rules for the governance of commerce between States but also to facilitate interstate commerce by eliminating potential obstructions, and to restrict it by eliminating potential stimulants. See NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 36—37 (1937). That is why the Court has repeatedly sustained congressional legislation on the ground that the regulated activities had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See, e.g., Hodel, supra, at 281 (surface coal mining); Katzenbach, supra, at 300 (discrimination by restaurants); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 258 (1964) (discrimination by hotels); Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S. 219, 237 (1948) (intrastate price-fixing); Board of Trade of Chicago v. Olsen, 262 U.S. 1, 40 (1923) (activities of a local grain exchange); Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495, 517, 524—525 (1922) (intrastate transactions at stockyard). Lopez and Morrison recognized the expansive scope of Congress’s authority in this regard: “[T]he pattern is clear. Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.” Lopez, supra, at 560; Morrison, supra, at 610 (same).
(…)
The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Legislators that pass laws that violate the Constitution should be drawn and quartered.

---

__Bonk__ posted:

---

Obamacare going before Supreme Court Tomorrow

---

JarkeldRuneblade posted:

---

So I got curious and looked back at old posts from around the time the bill passed the House and Senate. Very little (if any) talk about the constitutionality of the legislation.

The talking points were different, mostly about death panels, shoving it down the American peoples throats, giving healthcare to illegal immigrants, etc. The constitutionality seemed to be a later talking point.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

The unconstitutionality angle was argued ad nauseum here on the Outpost prior to the passing of the bill.

---

Elkad posted:

---

I distinctly remember the complaints that it would force us to buy a product from a private party.

No other law has gone that far.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

The unconstitutionality angle was argued ad nauseum here on the Outpost prior to the passing of the bill.

---

Of course it was. But not much until it became clear the RWNs in Congress couldn't defeat the bill legislatively.

Also, most of those same RWNs were all for a mandate before Democrats were for it. They clearly didn't see any problem back in 1992 when it was their main counterargument to Hillarycare.

---

Voodoo-Dahl posted:

---

Elkad posted:

---

I distinctly remember the complaints that it would force us to buy a product from a private party.

No other law has gone that far.

---

Like liability car insurance?

---

Voodoo-Dahl posted:

---

Elkad posted:

---

I distinctly remember the complaints that it would force us to buy a product from a private party.

No other law has gone that far.

---

Like liability car insurance?

---

Elkad posted:

---

Voodoo-Dahl posted:

---

Elkad posted:

---

I distinctly remember the complaints that it would force us to buy a product from a private party.

No other law has gone that far.

---

Like liability car insurance?

---

I can think of at least 3 ways around that one.

Don't drive on public roads.
Move to Virginia (possibly some other states as well) and post a bond yourself.
Don't get pulled over or have accidents when you do drive.

---

Elkad posted:

---

I distinctly remember the complaints that it would force us to buy a product from a private party.

No other law has gone that far.

---

Tych2 posted:

---

No one is forced to buy liability insurance unless you own a car. No one is forced to buy a car. You know this has been brought up before.

---

Tych2 posted:

---

IMHO I don't think you understand how it works.

---

Tych2 posted:

---

You can't be turned away from the ER, but you still have to pay for services. If you don't you'll go to a collection agency. It'll ruin your credit and you'll end up with a lien.

---

IMHO posted:

---

---

IMHO posted:

---

There are the way things should work, and there is reality. You can't handle the truth Tych. EVERYONE uses healthcare right now. Your exorbitant monthly payments, whether paid by you or your company, pays for uninsured people. Thank you

---

__Bonk__ posted:

---

I hope it goes down in flames and is gutted by the courts

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Would you feel the same way if you had a pre existing condition and couldn't get health insurance? Never mind "I can't afford it," you literally could not get health insurance at all? Serious question (that I'm sure you won't answer).

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

__Bonk__ posted:

---

I hope it goes down in flames and is gutted by the courts

---

Would you feel the same way if you had a pre existing condition and couldn't get health insurance? Never mind "I can't afford it," you literally could not get health insurance at all? Serious question (that I'm sure you won't answer).

---

Elkad posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

__Bonk__ posted:

---

I hope it goes down in flames and is gutted by the courts

---

Would you feel the same way if you had a pre existing condition and couldn't get health insurance? Never mind "I can't afford it," you literally could not get health insurance at all? Serious question (that I'm sure you won't answer).

---

Having a pre-existing condition and wanting insurance is like buying fire insurance after your house has burned.

It's INSURANCE. For IN CASE something bad happens, not for after it already did.

If you have cancer and want health insurance, it should cost the same as paying for the treatment yourself. Plus administrative overhead, coverage for non-cancer related stuff, etc..

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

__Bonk__ posted:

---

I hope it goes down in flames and is gutted by the courts

---

Would you feel the same way if you had a pre existing condition and couldn't get health insurance? Never mind "I can't afford it," you literally could not get health insurance at all? Serious question (that I'm sure you won't answer).

---

Elkad posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

__Bonk__ posted:

---

I hope it goes down in flames and is gutted by the courts

---

Would you feel the same way if you had a pre existing condition and couldn't get health insurance? Never mind "I can't afford it," you literally could not get health insurance at all? Serious question (that I'm sure you won't answer).

---

Having a pre-existing condition and wanting insurance is like buying fire insurance after your house has burned.

It's INSURANCE. For IN CASE something bad happens, not for after it already did.

If you have cancer and want health insurance, it should cost the same as paying for the treatment yourself. Plus administrative overhead, coverage for non-cancer related stuff, etc..

---

Sea_of_inK posted:

---

Providing health insurance for recent graduates until the age of 26 with their parents insurance is pissing away money?

RWNs certainly are cynical. Their last-man-standing ideology makes them resent any type of contribution to modern society.

---

Tych2 posted:

---

Voodoo-Dahl posted:

---

Elkad posted:

---

I distinctly remember the complaints that it would force us to buy a product from a private party.

No other law has gone that far.

---

Like liability car insurance?

---

No one is forced to buy liability insurance unless you own a car. No one is forced to buy a car. You know this has been brought up before.

That being said I support a single pay system.

---

theredkay1 posted:

---

If this health insurance requirement is unconstitutional, we would have to consider car insurance requirements to also be unconstitutional.

---