Universal Health Care...

[CaneBrain 95]

And I've said it's NOT unchecked because if they try to make us buy broccoli they will get sued and have to justify it in court over a span of years and numerous levels of courts. They will have to come up with a compelling argument. The idea that after this some legislator will mandate gym going and it will pass and be enacted with a snap of the fingers is hilarious. I think all you have done is found a judge who shares your fondness for chicken little syndrome. Many legal scholars, politicians and people here feel health insurance is a unique commodity for reasons stated ad nauseum. The idea that "next, there'll be broccoli" is amusing but far more of theoretical hand-wringing exercise than a practical concern.It's not that the question is irrelevant. I just think the system works. And whacked out arguments come up in court all the time. Justice Thomas voted that it was ok for a school official to strip search a 12 year old girl suspected of concealing advil. But it's the commerce clause that gets you worked up about abuse of power.

[BaseJester 1]

And I've said it's NOT unchecked because if they try to make us buy broccoli they will get sued and have to justify it in court over a span of years and numerous levels of courts. They will have to come up with a compelling argument. The idea that after this some legislator will mandate gym going and it will pass and be enacted with a snap of the fingers is hilarious. I think all you have done is found a judge who shares your fondness for chicken little syndrome. Many legal scholars, politicians and people here feel health insurance is a unique commodity for reasons stated ad nauseum. The idea that "next, there'll be broccoli" is amusing but far more of theoretical hand-wringing exercise than a practical concern.It's not that the question is irrelevant. I just think the system works. And whacked out arguments come up in court all the time. Justice Thomas voted that it was ok for a school official to strip search a 12 year old girl suspected of concealing advil. But it's the commerce clause that gets you worked up about abuse of power.

If you were a Supreme Court justice hearing the case to decide the constitutionality of requiring citizens to buy broccoli, how would you rule and how would you support your position?

[CaneBrain 95]

If you were a Supreme Court justice hearing the case to decide the constitutionality of requiring citizens to buy broccoli, how would you rule and how would you support your position?

I'd have to hear arguments but I'd probably rule against the law for being vague, arbitrary, and not containing any compelling government interest.

[hblask 1]

I'd have to hear arguments but I'd probably rule against the law for being vague, arbitrary, and not containing any compelling government interest.

Assume that the individual mandate stands on the assumption that "not being ill" is a public good and therefore affects commerce (this seems to be the primary arguments why it is OK).Say that mandatory gym memberships are being pushed on the basis that "not being ill" is a public good and therefore affects commerce.Can you say one is OK and the other isn't? Not from a practical standpoint, not from a "that's a law I want passed" standpoint, but from a consistent legal standpoint.

[BaseJester 1]

I'd have to hear arguments but I'd probably rule against the law for being vague, arbitrary, and not containing any compelling government interest.

The strict constructionists cringe at this answer, because you don't make any reference to the constitution in your determination of whether or not this law is constitutional. This doesn't bother you because you don't fear government as much as libertarians do. You're relying on reasonable people in government to make smart decisions. We're still clinging to the idea that there's a contract between the people and the government that limits its activities. We'd like justices to rule on Joe Public vs. Broccoli by looking in the constitution to see if requiring people to buy things that are good for them is an enumerated power.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011...y-proven-wrong/Seems to closely resemble a single payer system that decreases bureaucratic insurance company driven expenses while having a system in place to keep Doctor's from padding their own pockets with procedures that aren't of benefit.Comments ?

[hblask 1]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011...y-proven-wrong/Seems to closely resemble a single payer system that decreases bureaucratic insurance company driven expenses while having a system in place to keep Doctor's from padding their own pockets with procedures that aren't of benefit.Comments ?

I'm all in favor of voluntary associations like this. Voluntary consensual association is the heart of free markets. Things like this can work extremely well on a small scale. Forcing 300,000,000 people to forcibly join something like this and have no other choices, and forcing doctors into this is pretty much guaranteed fail, because then the terms are decided by people who have no interest in the specific results and doctors have no incentive to make it work. It's the difference between a corporation that gives bonuses based on company and worker performance and government-owned companies sharing the profits based on political concerns. In the former, people work hard to succeed; in the latter they work hard to avoid work.If we'd remove a lot of the regulatory regime which limits competition, we could see a lot more success stories like this.

[akoff 0]

Better hurry up and get that free healthcare before congress spends all the money

we never get tired of being stupid. BHO and crew create a system that doesn't work and that we can't afford and then our boys in DC go and start spendinf the money in advance...WTF.

[mrdannyg 274]

Assume that the individual mandate stands on the assumption that "not being ill" is a public good and therefore affects commerce (this seems to be the primary arguments why it is OK).Say that mandatory gym memberships are being pushed on the basis that "not being ill" is a public good and therefore affects commerce.Can you say one is OK and the other isn't? Not from a practical standpoint, not from a "that's a law I want passed" standpoint, but from a consistent legal standpoint.

Is the mandate being passed on the assumption that "not being ill" is a public good? Or that "not becoming ill to the point of requiring unaffordable medical care" is a public good? You're arguing the former, while it seems to me the difference between mandating insurance and broccoli is the latter.

[hblask 1]

Is the mandate being passed on the assumption that "not being ill" is a public good? Or that "not becoming ill to the point of requiring unaffordable medical care" is a public good? You're arguing the former, while it seems to me the difference between mandating insurance and broccoli is the latter.

The "not being ill" thing seemed to be a major argument in this thread. If everyone ate well and exercised, it would save the federal government FAR more money than the small percentage costs that the uninsured costs everyone. 50% of medical care in the US is govt funded; the costs of the uninsured is less than 2% of all medical costs (govt and private). So if you are attempting to say "high costs to the government" is the line, then health and exercise comes before buying a particular type of insurance. I asked for a line that could have legal standing. First, "unaffordable" is not a discrete term. Second, "medical care" isn't even a discrete term, it means a million different things to a million different people. And third, assuming those were discrete terms, prevention would create a better result in terms of eliminating "unaffordable medical care" than requiring a particular brand of insurance.So no, your new wording does nothing to draw a constitutional line between forced insurance and forced preventative care.

[mrdannyg 274]

The "not being ill" thing seemed to be a major argument in this thread. If everyone ate well and exercised, it would save the federal government FAR more money than the small percentage costs that the uninsured costs everyone. 50% of medical care in the US is govt funded; the costs of the uninsured is less than 2% of all medical costs (govt and private). So if you are attempting to say "high costs to the government" is the line, then health and exercise comes before buying a particular type of insurance. I asked for a line that could have legal standing. First, "unaffordable" is not a discrete term. Second, "medical care" isn't even a discrete term, it means a million different things to a million different people. And third, assuming those were discrete terms, prevention would create a better result in terms of eliminating "unaffordable medical care" than requiring a particular brand of insurance.So no, your new wording does nothing to draw a constitutional line between forced insurance and forced preventative care.

Sorry that I was not able to draw a clear and concise legal line regarding health care, as per your request. Apparently I'm not able to resolve among the most complex social problems in two sentences. If only I could be as clear anc concise as the Constitution, which hasn't at all been the source of constant debate by some of the smartest people in the world (and a lot of stupid people) for the last couple hundred years.So, perhaps you will consider using that big juicy brain to try to understand what I could possibly have meant by legally undefined words like "unaffordable" and "medical care" to show me how the latter of my proposed mandates does not make the broccoli argument go away.

[phlegm 6]

The "not being ill" thing seemed to be a major argument in this thread. If everyone ate well and exercised, it would save the federal government FAR more money than the small percentage costs that the uninsured costs everyone. 50% of medical care in the US is govt funded; the costs of the uninsured is less than 2% of all medical costs (govt and private). So if you are attempting to say "high costs to the government" is the line, then health and exercise comes before buying a particular type of insurance. I asked for a line that could have legal standing. First, "unaffordable" is not a discrete term. Second, "medical care" isn't even a discrete term, it means a million different things to a million different people. And third, assuming those were discrete terms, prevention would create a better result in terms of eliminating "unaffordable medical care" than requiring a particular brand of insurance.So no, your new wording does nothing to draw a constitutional line between forced insurance and forced preventative care.

I was under the impression that the majority of govt health care spending comes in the last few months of life.

[hblask 1]

Sorry that I was not able to draw a clear and concise legal line regarding health care, as per your request. Apparently I'm not able to resolve among the most complex social problems in two sentences. If only I could be as clear anc concise as the Constitution, which hasn't at all been the source of constant debate by some of the smartest people in the world (and a lot of stupid people) for the last couple hundred years.So, perhaps you will consider using that big juicy brain to try to understand what I could possibly have meant by legally undefined words like "unaffordable" and "medical care" to show me how the latter of my proposed mandates does not make the broccoli argument go away.

I already explained: the government and society spend way, way more on people eating poorly and not exercising than the cost of all uninsured care. So it makes no sense to say that the government can punish inactivity to protect us from the cost of uninsured care, but that they cannot punish us for inactivity for the much larger cost of personal neglect. If anything, it almost *begs* the government to intervene into personal neglect.

[mrdannyg 274]

I already explained: the government and society spend way, way more on people eating poorly and not exercising than the cost of all uninsured care. So it makes no sense to say that the government can punish inactivity to protect us from the cost of uninsured care, but that they cannot punish us for inactivity for the much larger cost of personal neglect. If anything, it almost *begs* the government to intervene into personal neglect.

You are requiring a significant logical leap you are making to detract from the obvious retort of your main point. You are the one saying that a government that forces responsibility on uninsured people should just accept responsibility for every aspect of our health. Your logic is no less of a leap than the suggestion that the government should eliminate every subsidy for health care.Also, the actual medical costs of uninsured care are only a small part of the overall (social) costs of uninsured people. I mean, it only costs $25 to pay someone to throw an abandoned (uninsured) child dying of leukemia in a dumpster, but...well you get the point.

[BaseJester 1]

Do you think I would be money ahead as an insurer or employer to give away broccoli to the people I am insuring?

[hblask 1]

You are requiring a significant logical leap you are making to detract from the obvious retort of your main point. You are the one saying that a government that forces responsibility on uninsured people should just accept responsibility for every aspect of our health. Your logic is no less of a leap than the suggestion that the government should eliminate every subsidy for health care.Also, the actual medical costs of uninsured care are only a small part of the overall (social) costs of uninsured people. I mean, it only costs $25 to pay someone to throw an abandoned (uninsured) child dying of leukemia in a dumpster, but...well you get the point.

I'm not saying the government should accept responsibility for every aspect of our health. I've tried to make that clear again and again. What I've also said again and again is that a government that is allowed to take over some obscure part of our health care has no legal prevention from taking over more important parts of our health care. My discussion has been about drawing a line in the sand. Letting Obamacare (and specifically, the individual mandate) stand means not just that the line is gone, but the sand is gone.There's a reason you guys keep changing the subject, and I'm sorry I've bit on the distraction.

[mrdannyg 274]

This is your premise:

I'm not saying the government should accept responsibility for every aspect of our health. I've tried to make that clear again and again. What I've also said again and again is that a government that is allowed to take over some obscure part of our health care has no legal prevention from taking over more important parts of our health care.

This is your argument:

So it makes no sense to say that the government can punish inactivity to protect us from the cost of uninsured care, but that they cannot punish us for inactivity for the much larger cost of personal neglect. If anything, it almost *begs* the government to intervene into personal neglect.

Do you see the problem?Others have noted that "punish[ing] inactivity to protect us from the cost of uninsured care" does not "'beg' the government to intervene into personal neglect." But you've dismissed those arguments. How? Oh yes, with this:

So it makes no sense to say that the government can punish inactivity to protect us from the cost of uninsured care, but that they cannot punish us for inactivity for the much larger cost of personal neglect. If anything, it almost *begs* the government to intervene into personal neglect.

I'm sure everyone (well, everyone still reading, which is probably just you and me) will agree this argument became intellectually painful days ago. Maybe we'll do better next time.

[Dread Aidan 8]

I'm sure everyone (well, everyone still reading, which is probably just you and me) will agree this argument became intellectually painful days ago.

Even I checked out of this discussion last week and I read everything on here.

[mrdannyg 274]

Even I checked out of this discussion last week and I read everything on here.

My life would be much funnier if you were actually Daniel Negreanu.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Let me just say that I actually agree with HBlask's premise. It's pretty logical. If the Constitution allows the government to force people to buy health insurance, based on a purely theoretical framework, it can force people to buy other sorts of preventative or protective products, such as life insurance or something made up called "gym insurance." I agree that one can't really draw a logical line between the two only by describing them as general products (meaning, without referencing what they actually are, which would be the trivial line to draw between them. In other words, saying, "Because a gym membership is a gym membership and that's different than health insurance doesn't count"). Having said that, the US has essentially for decades forced people to buy into government run insurance programs. So, the health care law is merely a privatization of already existing policies. (HBlask, on constitutional grounds, would you be happier if the government had made medicare for all and paid for it with a universal salary tax?)Frankly, I'm very interested in the decision. I think that either way, it will have a very large impact. There's almost no way for the Supreme Court decision to not effect many wide ways that the government interacts with the people.---I'm also one who thinks that "commerce clause" is widely misinterpreted and stretched. The commerce clause clearly doesn't give the federal government the power to force people to buy insurance, it merely determines how states interact with each other.On the other hand, the constitution gives the federal congress the following powers:Section. 8.Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.Which is pretty open-ended, if you ask me. Therefore, if Congress believes that mandating health insurance provides for the common Welfare (meaning, it betters the people's lives in general), then it can pass such a law. The only thing stopping crazy "broccoli" laws from being passed would then not be the constitution but rather the legislature (as an extension of the will of the people).

[BaseJester 1]

On the other hand, the constitution gives the federal congress the following powers:Section. 8.Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I don't think providing for the common defence and general welfare are separate powers granted by clause 1. Those are the restrictive clauses on the reasons that Congress can tax.

[Dread Aidan 8]

My life would be much funnier if you were actually Daniel Negreanu.

I'm not really sure what this means.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm not really sure what this means.

That's because you aren't really Daniel Negreanu.no use trying to pretend you are now, it just won't fly anymore.

[hblask 1]

Having said that, the US has essentially for decades forced people to buy into government run insurance programs. So, the health care law is merely a privatization of already existing policies. (HBlask, on constitutional grounds, would you be happier if the government had made medicare for all and paid for it with a universal salary tax?)

Yes, constitutionally, if they said it was a tax and you had to get care from the government, then it's just an ill-advised govt program. The Obama admin was quite explicit that this one is NOT a tax, and the insurance would be private, and that they could do it because of the commerce clause.

Frankly, I'm very interested in the decision. I think that either way, it will have a very large impact. There's almost no way for the Supreme Court decision to not effect many wide ways that the government interacts with the people.

Yes, this is a big one.

I'm also one who thinks that "commerce clause" is widely misinterpreted and stretched. The commerce clause clearly doesn't give the federal government the power to force people to buy insurance, it merely determines how states interact with each other.

Again, this is exactly correct.

On the other hand, the constitution gives the federal congress the following powers:Section. 8.Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.Which is pretty open-ended, if you ask me. Therefore, if Congress believes that mandating health insurance provides for the common Welfare (meaning, it betters the people's lives in general), then it can pass such a law. The only thing stopping crazy "broccoli" laws from being passed would then not be the constitution but rather the legislature (as an extension of the will of the people).

Yeah, I don't know why they don't just stick to this. I obviously don't believe this was an open-ended evasion of the Constitution, but the ability to tax is pretty broad.

[CaneBrain 95]

I'd assume they will have multiple arguments, that the phrase "compelling government interest in controlling exploding health care costs" will arise, and that they default to a commerce clause argument bc the commerce clause has been untouchable in the courts for 65-75 years.