The Court can set the parameters.
You scoff at the uniqueness of industry without coming up with anything comparable.
You have four votes on the court at the moment to regulate anything in the name of economic activity. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of the inherent limitations that may be placed going forward.
And I don't scoff at anything. I think this is a very close call. As I have said repeatedly, I don't buy the inaction vs action differential for a moment. I am persuaded by the everyone acts eventually argument, but I don't think you have 5 votes on the court who are at the moment. The industry being unique isn't going to get Kennedy's vote. My opinion which may not be widespread is that the uniqueness argument isn't the winner. I would be hammering home the fact that it is only unique in terms of the eventuality of use, but it isn't unique in that it's not asking for an expansion of economic activity due to its uniqueness -- that HC still fits under the economic activity test.
Perhaps if this is struck down it will energize the base.
Are you saying I am wrong because you can find some prices the government drove up even worse than they drove up health care? I have been saying that health care has become more unaffordable since it became free for a lot of people. I just showed with true cases that normal people used to be able to afford some of the health care things they can no longer afford. You just showed that normal people also cannot afford a house or a Wake Forest education. You did not refute anything. You just showed that government intervention can screw up other things. Government has not interferred nearly as much with computers and they are less expensive now than they used to be. Forty years ago the pediatrician charged a few dollars per visit, cash. Today the copay is $30. You can't really believe that health care is not more unaffordable.
Not things, healthcare. The health care that's going to be given to you whether you have the money or insurance to cover it or not.
1 - Healthcare is only required to be given to me when I have a medical emergency. That's the Federal law (passed when Reagan was in office). A state could pass a more expansive law. And even then it is not "given" to me. I am still charged for it. I just may not be able to pay the bill.
2 - Because some people can't pay the bills resulting from the legally mandated care they receive, that obviously drives up costs for hospitals that offer emergency care.
3 - That in turn drives up costs at those hospitals for care generally (to subsidize those who don't pay).
4 - That in turn drives up the cost of insurance for those who elect to buy it.
5 - If I don't believe I'll "need" healthcare because I'm young or otherwise healthy and elect not to buy insurance that remains my choice. I'm taking a risk that I'll get sick or hurt and have to pay out of pocket for treatment I can afford, or may not be able to get treatment because I can't get it until I have an emergency, that I may die as a result of not being treated until I have an emergency (when it is too late perhaps to help me) or otherwise may not be able to pay for emergency care once it has to be given to me and then face all sundry of bad issues.
6 - Those who have health insurance are also making a choice. They are willing to pay for the insurance so they can get care.
Those who choose not to buy insurance are taking a risk today. They are taking a risk that they will not be able to get care they may need to remain healthy or to even survive. And, not to miss this important point, those who cannot afford to buy insurance won't be required to buy it under this law anyway.
Again, the individual mandate is not constitutional. 70% of Americans don't approve of it. 70%. Not because the idea of cheaper insurance is a bad thing, but because we do not want the Federal government dictating that we have to buy something in an otherwise elective market. Personally it is bad for me and you and others who buy insurance. I get that point. I don't like it. But that doesn't mean those who elect not to protect themselves should be forced into a market in which they do not want to participate. That choice they are making comes with risks to them.
Again, you can come up with all sorts of ways to make this law work under the Federal constitution. And striking down this law may end up speeding up the move to some sort of universal system. They didn't elect to do that. They elected a system that is fundamentally flawed under the law of the land.
Approval rates have nothing to do with Constitutionality. Many legal scholars have determined it is Constitutional, go back and read the thread.
I'm quite sure there are many Americans who do not want to have to buy health insurance because they would rather have the "freedom" to risk their lives and run up our health care costs. I say, fuck them. I'm all for freedom, I love freedom, but that ain't freedom, Sally.
Where do you draw the line, Missy?
And there are plenty of con law scholars who think this law is bunko - perhaps even a majority of the Supreme Court.
I draw it at health care, sweet tits. Completely ridiculous exercise in 'freedom fighting' simply for political gain. Cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
Why is it so hard to write a law that works, flappy cakes? The reason we ended up with the mandate in the first place is because the insurance companies wanted it. How "liberal". You can come up with two or three easy constructions that get us to universal Federally sponsored healthcare if you think that's a smart thing to do. The Dems had the "votes" seeing as how both houses of congress and the oval office were under their control. Instead they passed a law few people like that goes beyond previously recognized authority to regulate commerce. Not exactly bright. And because they didn't bother to include a severability clause into the law - for God only know what reason since that is in almost every law congress passes, much less one with 2,700 pages - the whole thing may get struck down. Seeing as how there are parts of the law most Americans would prefer to keep, that ain't bright.
Making insurance MORE expensive and REQUIRING everyone to give money to FOR-PROFIT insurance companies was a good idea? LOL
Thank God this piece of crap is going to be struck down. Back to the drawing board, Democrat insurance industry pawns. I can't believe people fall for this feel-good crap.
In other words, tuna melt, they didn't have the votes to do something legitimate. So they did something that likely will be found unconstitutional.
And while you may draw the line at health care, most folks aren't so naive to think the government wouldn't use the "mandate" in some other fashion they determined met their needs.
They got almost everyone covered, pork loin. You and I are already paying for the uninsured when they ultimately use our health care system - which they all do or will do. It's not to be a nice friendly hippie, it is to square the payment for the goods/services provided to them. It is commerce that every American participates in, and Congress can regulate it.
We are the government. You, me, our friends and neighbors. It's not the Wizard of Oz behind a curtain. What is the big scary gubmint going to do with the mandate to harm us?
Force productive citizens to subsidize healthcare for deadbeats, illegal aliens, and other assorted malcontents, while paying higher premiums for their own healthcare, which is already overpriced?
You are already paying for them now, Copernicus.