Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry


This is the next evolutionary step towards un-fucking our heathcare system. Maybe the next 12-16 years from now we'll have another Democrat who will move the ball forward a bit more.

  • 1
Or maybe, if we're lucky, we'll have another Republican who cements this step into the status quo by supporting it in their 2016 campaign. Like Eisenhower with Social Security, or Nixon with Medicare.

I'm still wondering though....

The "mandate" to buy insurance is the most far-reaching, "interpretation" of the Commerce Clause to date, and has a non-trivial chance of being kicked to the curb by SCOTUS.

When/if that happens, and the insurance companies no longer have the subsidizing effect of the "healthy people" paying for the "pre-existing conditions and high risk" people.... how do you plan to prevent the insurance companies from not going out of business?

The way the law is currently crafted, those companies will have to keep those "burdensome" folks on their books, and can't get rid of them, AND can't charge them what they actually cost, but they will have lost the millions of "healthy" customers who were subsidizing those losses. They'll be forced to either jack up the rates sky-high for every single customer, or go out of business.

Is there a safety-net in the law that if the mandate is declared unconstitutional, then the other part of the compromise automatically gets backed out? Because, if not, this stands a very real chance of fucking the healthcare system far worse than "doing nothing" did.

That entire attack comes from the same people that invented the "death panel" stuff.

Here's a video that explains it to you:

OK, so we seem to be in agreement. You don't have an answer from how the left will rescue healthcare from it's "reform" when/if SCOTUS tells Congress to pound sand.

Because you can crack wise all you want, and try to lump me in with other folks (who, by the way, I paid no attention to,.... a basic reading of Article I is all it took to see the dilemma), and link to cute, funny videos that poke fun at the more ignorant parts of the right-wing, but at the end of the day, there's clearly going to be a SCOTUS-bound case on this very topic, and it's a coin-toss as to which side of the argument SCOTUS is going to agree with, but PROBABLY the argument from the right given the current leanings of the Justices.

If you haven't even considered that possibility, and feel the only proper response is to mock it, then I guess the whole "head in the sand" thing must work for some people.

Re: Commerce Clause

I agree that there's definitely a case there, but I'm not so sure that it's as close in the SCOTUS. The commerce clause has gotten pretty expansive. Striking down HCR on commerce clause grounds might also have an impact on other recent decisions that rely on the commerce clause. I'm not sure the SCOTUS wants to open that can of worms.

In addition, any case of this magnitude will take some time to make it through the courts. It's impossible to predict what the makeup of the court would be by the time such a case reached them.

Re: Commerce Clause

The gov't can accomplish the same by increasing fed taxes by $X, offering a tax credit of $X if you have insurance, and no tax break if you don't, where $X = the proposed penalty for not having insurance.

The current SCOTUS is highly pro-fed-government.

Re: Commerce Clause

But the Constitutional argument is that -- if you accept that THAT is a valid use of the tax-code, then all of the following are also true:

-- You are entitled to a "$250 no jeans tax-credit" if you never wore blue jeans during the tax-year. Also, every citizen got a $250 tax-bump.
-- You are entitled to a "$2000 non-smoking tax-credit" if you do not smoke. Also, every citizen got a $2000 tax increase.

If you are willing to open that door, you've essentially given the government carte blanche to completely dictate your life to you and use the tax code to do it. Even on things which arguably they have no right to do so on:

-- You are entitled to a "$10,000 I didn't use the N-Word tax-credit" if you do not use the "N-Word" during the tax-year. Also, every person's taxes went up by $10K.

It doesn't matter because they're not regulating speech, they're just "giving tax credits for behavior they want to encourage".

It's an argument that, if you accept it, completely undermines nearly every constitutional limitation on legislative power that exists.

I did a little more research into this whole "commerce clause" thing and found this: here

  • 1