Federal Judge in Florida rules healthcare law unconstitutional

[QUOTE="aransom"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]They say it's wrong to force people to pay health insurance, but what of car insurance? Unless there's a distinct difference I'm not aware of? WhiteKnight77

Auto insurance also protects the driver and the passengers in said insured vehicle and not just other motorists, passengers or pedestrians.

Although you can get auto insurance that protects yourself and your passengers, it not a requirement to do so. There's also a difference -- auto insurance is state mandated. This health insurance fiasco was mandated by the federal government.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Auto insurance also protects the driver and the passengers in said insured vehicle and not just other motorists, passengers or pedestrians.

psychobrew

Although you can get auto insurance that protects yourself and your passengers, it not a requirement to do so. There's also a difference -- auto insurance is state mandated. This health insurance fiasco was mandated by the federal government.

You will notice that I said that later in this thread.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="aransom"]The purpose of auto insurance is to protect other people, the purpose of health insurance is to protect you.

psychobrew

Auto insurance also protects the driver and the passengers in said insured vehicle and not just other motorists, passengers or pedestrians.

Although you can get auto insurance that protects yourself and your passengers, it not a requirement to do so. There's also a difference -- auto insurance is state mandated. This health insurance fiasco was mandated by the federal government.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Auto insurance also protects the driver and the passengers in said insured vehicle and not just other motorists, passengers or pedestrians.

DroidPhysX

Although you can get auto insurance that protects yourself and your passengers, it not a requirement to do so. There's also a difference -- auto insurance is state mandated. This health insurance fiasco was mandated by the federal government.

As said earlier, you do not have to own a car. I don't pay for insurance as I don't own a car. Simple.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

Although you can get auto insurance that protects yourself and your passengers, it not a requirement to do so. There's also a difference -- auto insurance is state mandated. This health insurance fiasco was mandated by the federal government.

WhiteKnight77

As said earlier, you do not have to own a car. I don't pay for insurance as I don't own a car. Simple.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] But its still a mandate? Right?

DroidPhysX

As said earlier, you do not have to own a car. I don't pay for insurance as I don't own a car. Simple.

There are various posts that I have made in this thread addressing tour point on both legal and philosophical levels.

Furthermore, although it is your car, you are only required to insure it when you drive on roads. (which do not belong to you)

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] that is subjective and there are many charities for people that are not paid for at the end of a gun.surrealnumber5

I've never understood what makes charities so much better than the government. The only effective difference is that charities can't force donations. Charities are subject to the same bureaucratic waste, corruption, incompetence, etc. that the government is.

Do you still have a link to those?

Further proof that the Democrats are the new republicans and that the GOP is filled with nothing more than people suffering from right wing brain decay.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I've never understood what makes charities so much better than the government. The only effective difference is that charities can't force donations. Charities are subject to the same bureaucratic waste, corruption, incompetence, etc. that the government is.

chessmaster1989

Do you still have a link to those?

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] But its still a mandate? Right?

DroidPhysX

As said earlier, you do not have to own a car. I don't pay for insurance as I don't own a car. Simple.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

As said earlier, you do not have to own a car. I don't pay for insurance as I don't own a car. Simple.

coolbeans90

There are various posts that I have made in this thread addressing tour point on both legal and philosophical levels.

Furthermore, although it is your car, you are only required to insure it when you drive on roads. (which do not belong to you)

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] You still didnt explain the Social Security Tax. & I'm still mandated to pay auto insurance. I want to own a car. Why should i have to pay insurance. Its MY car. (its MY health)

-Sun_Tzu-

There are various posts that I have made in this thread addressing tour point on both legal and philosophical levels.

Furthermore, although it is your car, you are only required to insure it when you drive on roads. (which do not belong to you)

Agreed. (sort of) The decision-making processes with regards to the rules of said property differ as it is collectively owned.

there is nothing egregious in Obama's healthcare law whatsoever. Conservatives oppose it blindly, with nothing behind them but bias and propaganda.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]For you people comparing health insurance to car insurance, you don't have to own a car or drive. You have to live.DroidPhysX

*In rich guy voice* I think the federal government overstepped its boundaries by making me pay auto insurance. I also think they overstepped its boundaries by making me pay unemployment tax and social security tax.

So if this is ruled unconstitutional, what happens? Do the rest of the provisions stay and we have to amend it to keep people from gaming the system, or do we go back to the era when people with pre-existing conditions can't get health care?mattbbpl

In the Virginia lawsuit, (ruled in December) the lawsuit only affected the individual mandate. Of course, due to the fact that much of the bill was contingent upon the individual mandate, some major legislative tweaking would have to be done to the bill.

In this lawsuit, the entire bill was ruled unconstitutional due to a lack of a severance clause within the bill. This would bring the health-care arena back to the system before the bill passed.

Either of these rulings could be altered at higher levels of Federal courts.

there is nothing egregious inOobama's healthcare law whatsoever. Conservatives oppose it blindly, with nothing behind them but bias and propaganda.

arbitor365

The irony of the post is quite remarkable.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]So if this is ruled unconstitutional, what happens? Do the rest of the provisions stay and we have to amend it to keep people from gaming the system, or do we go back to the era when people with pre-existing conditions can't get health care?coolbeans90

In the Virginia lawsuit, (ruled in December) the lawsuit only affected the individual mandate. Of course, due to the fact that much of the bill was contingent upon the individual mandate, some major legislative tweaking would have to be done to the bill.

In this lawsuit, the entire bill was ruled unconstitutional due to a lack of a severance clause within the bill. This would bring the health-care arena back to the system before the bill passed.

Either of these rulings could be altered at higher levels of Federal courts.

& I'm still mandated to pay auto insurance. I want to own a car. Why should i have to pay insurance. Its MY car. (its MY health)

DroidPhysX

That's not why you buy auto insurance.

The reason you have to have it if you own a car is the chance you could hit someone. You have to have the means to pay to get them back to health.

That's why you can get by with just Liability insurance.

So if this is ruled unconstitutional, what happens? Do the rest of the provisions stay and we have to amend it to keep people from gaming the system, or do we go back to the era when people with pre-existing conditions can't get health care?mattbbpl

Well we could always put in place single-payer health care; that way people would not be coerced to buy private health insurance.

But yeah, barring that, without the mandate the entire thing collapses and we go back to where we were before.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]So if this is ruled unconstitutional, what happens? Do the rest of the provisions stay and we have to amend it to keep people from gaming the system, or do we go back to the era when people with pre-existing conditions can't get health care?GabuEx

Well we could always put in place single-payer health care; that way people would not be coerced to buy private health insurance.

But yeah, barring that, without the mandate the entire thing collapses and we go back to where we were before.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]So if this is ruled unconstitutional, what happens? Do the rest of the provisions stay and we have to amend it to keep people from gaming the system, or do we go back to the era when people with pre-existing conditions can't get health care?mattbbpl

Well we could always put in place single-payer health care; that way people would not be coerced to buy private health insurance.

But yeah, barring that, without the mandate the entire thing collapses and we go back to where we were before.

Well, see, that's the whole problem.

Polls find that supermajorities of the public are in favor of almost all of the provisions in the health care reform law, such as making illegal the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

However, polls find that only a minority of the public is in favor of the provision that actually enables this to be financially feasible.

And then the public wonders why the government they elect is so fiscally irresponsible.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]So if this is ruled unconstitutional, what happens? Do the rest of the provisions stay and we have to amend it to keep people from gaming the system, or do we go back to the era when people with pre-existing conditions can't get health care?mattbbpl

Well we could always put in place single-payer health care; that way people would not be coerced to buy private health insurance.

But yeah, barring that, without the mandate the entire thing collapses and we go back to where we were before.

Well, businesses tend to think short term with these things. And in the mean time, I don't think that a single-payer health-care system would be a politically viable move in the foreseeable future, given how much America loves "socialism." But that's just my rudimentary analysis of the matter.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

There are various posts that I have made in this thread addressing tour point on both legal and philosophical levels.

Furthermore, although it is your car, you are only required to insure it when you drive on roads. (which do not belong to you)

coolbeans90

Agreed. (sort of) The decision-making processes with regards to the rules of said property differ as it is collectively owned.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Well we could always put in place single-payer health care; that way people would not be coerced to buy private health insurance.

But yeah, barring that, without the mandate the entire thing collapses and we go back to where we were before.

coolbeans90

Well, businesses tend to think short term with these things. And in the mean time, I don't think that a single-payer health-care system would be a politically viable move in the foreseeable future, given how much America loves "socialism." But that's just my rudimentary analysis of the matter.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]So if this is ruled unconstitutional, what happens? Do the rest of the provisions stay and we have to amend it to keep people from gaming the system, or do we go back to the era when people with pre-existing conditions can't get health care?GabuEx

Well we could always put in place single-payer health care; that way people would not be coerced to buy private health insurance.

But yeah, barring that, without the mandate the entire thing collapses and we go back to where we were before.

Vermont's new governor is moving forward with single payer too. If this is ruled unconstitutional then romneycare here in MA will collapse and seeing as the majority of residents in each district, the majority or doctors and the governor here in MA all support single payer; we will likely adopt it.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Well, technically the roads do belong to you (seeing as how they are publically funded).-Sun_Tzu-

Agreed. (sort of) The decision-making processes with regards to the rules of said property differ as it is collectively owned.

Yes, health insurance is quite obviously a collectively pooled resource. Just like car insurance. I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at here. A person's health unlike roads, is at least to the best of my knowledge under their effective ownership.

Regarding the latter part of your post, I do not agree with forcibly requiring perfectly individuals whom do not wish to purchase health insurance to do so simply because of a faulty system's moral hazard which said uninsured individuals did not create.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] I was thinking.... Wouldn't the repeal of this thing essentially demand that the next reform attempt go straight for single payer? Shouldn't the private insurance firm lobbyists be begging the politicians to stop trying to repeal it?mattbbpl

Well, businesses tend to think short term with these things. And in the mean time, I don't think that a single-payer health-care system would be a politically viable move in the foreseeable future, given how much America loves "socialism." But that's just my rudimentary analysis of the matter.

That may be so. But I'll be damned if I ever see corporations think ten years ahead.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

& I'm still mandated to pay auto insurance. I want to own a car. Why should i have to pay insurance. Its MY car. (its MY health)

topsemag55

That's not why you buy auto insurance.

The reason you have to have it if you own a car is the chance you could hit someone. You have to have the means to pay to get them back to health.

That's why you can get by with just Liability insurance.

Actually no.. Michigan for instance is a no fault state..

Well it's rare im happy to be a UK citizen but this one of them.

Btw not being an expert in the US constituion or anything but wouldn't this mean free Public schooling is also unconstituional?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Agreed. (sort of) The decision-making processes with regards to the rules of said property differ as it is collectively owned.

coolbeans90

Yes, health insurance is quite obviously a collectively pooled resource. Just like car insurance. I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at here. A person's health unlike roads, is at least to the best of my knowledge under their effective ownership.

Regarding the latter part of your post, I do not agree with forcibly requiring perfectly individuals whom do not wish to purchase health insurance simply because of a faulty system's moral hazard which said uninsured individuals did not create.

Well it's rare im happy to be a UK citizen but this one of them.

Btw not being an expert in the US constituion or anything but wouldn't this mean free Public schooling is also unconstituional?

MattDistillery

No. The legal technicalities are primarily focused around whether or not the Federal government has the legal jurisdiction to mandate a purchase. (distinct from taxation) Due to this, I would imagine that a single-payer, government run, health care system similar to that typically used in Europe would be legal. However it seems politically suicidal to attempt to institute such a system at the present moment.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Auto insurance also protects the driver and the passengers in said insured vehicle and not just other motorists, passengers or pedestrians.

DroidPhysX

Although you can get auto insurance that protects yourself and your passengers, it not a requirement to do so. There's also a difference -- auto insurance is state mandated. This health insurance fiasco was mandated by the federal government.

The commerce clause of the constitution limits the extent to which the federal government can govern commerce, stating that it shall have the power to regulate foreign and interstate (between states) commerce. Everything else, such as commerce laws for citizens, are left to the states. This means that the states can pass laws mandating the purchase of car insurance if you want to drive a car, however, the federal government cannot!

The healthcare bill is a mandate of the federal government, which is unconstitutional. If a state passed such a law for its own residents, it would be perfectly constitutional as the states are not limited by the commerce clause.

[QUOTE="DreamnDayUnite"]Thank God I live in a country with free healthcare.AutoPilotOn

[QUOTE="MattDistillery"]

Well it's rare im happy to be a UK citizen but this one of them.

Btw not being an expert in the US constituion or anything but wouldn't this mean free Public schooling is also unconstituional?

coolbeans90

No. The legal technicalities are primarily focused around whether or not the Federal government has the legal jurisdiction to mandate a purchase. (distinct from taxation) Due to this, I would imagine that a single-payer, government run, health care system similar to that typically used in Europe would be legal. However it seems politically suicidal to attempt to institute such a system at the present moment.

Is healthcare interstate commerce? If so, Congress can do this. But I dont know if the Supreme Court will uphold it because i can guarantee you 4 votes for and 4 votes against the law. Knowing Kennedy, he would vote against it. Something about the Citizens United Case tells me he doesnt like regulations....

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Insurance is collectively owned as well. All you are doing with insurance is pooling all of your money together with a bunch of other people so you can pay your medical bills collectively considering how expensive medical care is, and when some people choose to not participate that makes everyone who does participate have to put more money into that pool, or are not even able to participate altogether. People not acquiring insurance have a pretty significant negative effect on everyone else, and just as how you are only required to insure your car while your driving on public roads (because you could potentially get into an accident), you should be required to insure your health when you will potentially need to utilize medical care that is ultimately funded collectively by everyone else. -Sun_Tzu-

Yes, health insurance is quite obviously a collectively pooled resource. Just like car insurance. I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at here. A person's health unlike roads, is at least to the best of my knowledge under their effective ownership.

Regarding the latter part of your post, I do not agree with forcibly requiring perfectly individuals whom do not wish to purchase health insurance simply because of a faulty system's moral hazard which said uninsured individuals did not create.

I think what you are trying to say is that access to medical care would be analogous to public roads, not the medical care itself. I would agree. However I do not agree with forcing people to purchase health insurance simply because a third party has allowed them access to medical care. They didn't have a choice in the matter. And while people are going to participate in the health-care market at some point in their life, I think that it would be a preferable option to allow individuals a choice in how they would prefer to finance said interactions with that market. Insurance is more of a necessity for some people than it is others.

However it seems politically suicidal to attempt to institute such a system at the present moment.

coolbeans90

Its about time somebody called it for what it was: unconstitutional

Its about time somebody called it for what it was: unconstitutional

Krustbox

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="MattDistillery"]

Well it's rare im happy to be a UK citizen but this one of them.

Btw not being an expert in the US constituion or anything but wouldn't this mean free Public schooling is also unconstituional?

DroidPhysX

No. The legal technicalities are primarily focused around whether or not the Federal government has the legal jurisdiction to mandate a purchase. (distinct from taxation) Due to this, I would imagine that a single-payer, government run, health care system similar to that typically used in Europe would be legal. However it seems politically suicidal to attempt to institute such a system at the present moment.

Is healthcare interstate commerce? If so, Congress can do this. But I dont know if the Supreme Court will uphold it because i can guarantee you 4 votes for and 4 votes against the law. Knowing Kennedy, he would vote against it. Something about the Citizens United Case tells me he doesnt like regulations....

Health-care is in point of fact considered interstate commerce. That is not being disputed. What is being contested is whether or not congress can force mandate a purchase. And yes, I think it all will come down to Kennedy. I think that he will roll with the "constitutional" crowd, but that's just my guess.

Btw not being an expert in the US constituion or anything but wouldn't this mean free Public schooling is also unconstituional?

MattDistillery

Public school is not free. Everyone has to pay local taxes that pay for those public schools whether or not you actually have a child.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

However it seems politically suicidal to attempt to institute such a system at the present moment.

-Sun_Tzu-

The American public is an interesting crowd. While it seems to love Medicare, (at least old people) I imagine that at least in the short term that having Medicare cover the entire populous would be seen as the "s" word. However, if done gradually, it could be done. But at the present moment, I do not think that even a comprehensive legislative path gradually increasing Medicare coverage over the next several decades could be passed at the present moment. An increase in government run programs doesn't seem to be in phase in the time being. (see public option)

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Yes, health insurance is quite obviously a collectively pooled resource. Just like car insurance. I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at here. A person's health unlike roads, is at least to the best of my knowledge under their effective ownership.

Regarding the latter part of your post, I do not agree with forcibly requiring perfectly individuals whom do not wish to purchase health insurance simply because of a faulty system's moral hazard which said uninsured individuals did not create.

coolbeans90

I think what you are trying to say is that access to medical care would be analogous to public roads, not the medical care itself. I would agree. However I do not agree with forcing people to purchase health insurance simply because a third party has allowed them access to medical care. They didn't have a choice in the matter. And while people are going to participate in the health-care market at some point in their life, I think that it would be a preferable option to allow individuals a choice in how they would prefer to finance said interactions with that market. Insurance is more of a necessity for some people than it is others.

Good, this health care bill isn't constitutional at all, the government isn't supposed to give you health care, thats absurd.

halo1399

[QUOTE="halo1399"]

Good, this health care bill isn't constitutional at all, the government isn't supposed to give you health care, thats absurd.

DroidPhysX

Or even health insurance for that matter.

(Well, except for Medicare, which was broadened under this health care law, but did not account for a majority of changes.)

Good, this health care bill isn't constitutional at all, the government isn't supposed to give you health care, thats absurd.

halo1399