Federal Judge in Florida rules healthcare law unconstitutional

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Because all of those are expressly forbidden by constitutional amendments. Unlike auto insurance; your analogy is broken. There is a certain article granting the Federal Gov't the ability to regulate interstate commerce, yet not the legal jurisdiction to mandate purchases. And there is no amendment denying specifically state governments from requiring the purchase of insurance. So they may via the 10th amendment. Please get your technicalities in order.

coolbeans90

You're conflating all parts of the constitution, articles, amendments, etc., and assuming that they are all enforced in the same manner. They aren't. It isn't a constitutional amendment that is related to this lawsuit. It doesn't matter to the states regardless, considering that the clause in question (the commerce clause) mentions only congress, and its allegedly derived ability to mandate purchases from it. So, according to the logic you are using here, the states can't mandate auto insurance anyway. Fortunately, what isn't legal for the Federal Government to do isn't the same as what the state governments may do. If the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is struck down, it will not affect auto insurance laws, nor the individual mandate in Massachusetts etc. Ad hominems are cute though.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] If the federal government can't do it, neither can the states.

No state may legislate prayer in public places, whether they be federal or local.

No state may ban guns.

No state may institute slavery.

No state may ban sodomy.

No state may forbid a black man from marrying a white woman.

No state may ban women from voting.

Court rulings are UNIVERSAL.

Theokhoth

Because all of those are expressly forbidden by constitutional amendments. Unlike auto insurance; your analogy is broken. There is a certain article granting the Federal Gov't the ability to regulate interstate commerce, yet not the legal jurisdiction to mandate purchases. And there is no amendment denying specifically state governments from requiring the purchase of insurance. So they may via the 10th amendment. Please get your technicalities in order.

Again, you're clueless. The sodomy ruling came about because it was a FEDERAL QUESTION of discrimination against homosexuals. The law only banned sodomy for homosexuals, so the question was, "can a state ban same-sex sodomy only?" The answer was no. The only reason that ruling was handed down is because the sodomy law targeted homosexuals. States can STILL ban sodomy if they write the legislation in a way that bans all citizens from sodomy equally.Go read Lawrence v. Texas. Then come back.

The unconstitutionality of the healthcare law will NOT apply in all fifty states if it deemed to be so. It will apply to the federal government, because that is the issue. The issue is NOT whether states can mandate healt insurance. It's a federal question in federal court of whether Congress can do this under the authority of the commerce clause...not whether a state can do it. States can still do it until somebody sues a state over it, and the Court decides it is also unconstitutional for states to do it.

If the Supreme Court rules that the federal government cannot do something, THAT DOES NOT mean the states cannot do it. THAT DOES NOT "set the framework for the law in all fifty states," whatever that's even supposed to mean. Most of the time, when the Supreme Court rules that the federal government cannot do something across the board, it does so precisely because it wants to leave the decision up to individual states. The Constitution does NOT apply to the states except in two circumstances: First, it applies to the states where there is what is termed a textually demonstrable commitment to the states, which is essentially a clause in the given section that says "this applies to the states." Second, it applies to the states if the Supreme Court chooses to incorporate it via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or another section where there is a textually demonstrable commitment (but the 14th Amendment is the most common).

The Court hears very, very specific questions, and scope of their ruling is limited to those questions. In this case, the question will be, "can the federal government mandate health insurance purchases by citizens?" If the answer is no, it ONLY MEANS that the federal government cannot mandate health insurance purhcases by citizens. The states can still do it until the question of, "can the states mandate health insurance purchases by citizens" reaches the Court.

Federal court rulings do NOT supersede state law. In fact, federal district courts must follow the laws of the states in which they sit. Questions of state law between citizens of the same state cannot even be HEARD by a federal court. There must be either an interstate controversy or a federal question (this is basic subject matter jurisdiction). In almost all cases, the only way a federal ruling will directly supersede a state law is if it is made by the Supreme Court, and if it directly addresses the state law.

I'm tired of explaining this, but suffice it to say, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Nor do you have any idea of how the state and fedeal court systems work. I suggest law school.

Communistik

Thank you for explaining it clearly - well done :).

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] They are expressly forbidden by the Court's INTERPRETATION OF Constitutional amendments. Many of these were real laws. Sodomy was legally banned; this was perfectly constitutional until the Court interpreted the Constitution otherwise; their ruling immediately went into effect in all fifty states and now no state may ban sodomy. Same with every single one of those other examples. If you don't understand this basic aspect of our government, then no wonder you think this healthcare bill is unconstitutional. Supreme Court rulings are final and universal; they apply to the entire country, period. Why do you think it's so important that the healthcare case goes to them? If it's ruled constitutional then it will apply in all fifty states; if it's ruled unconstitutional then no state may apply it, ever, unless the constitution or the Court's interpretation of it is changed.

Theokhoth

You're conflating all parts of the constitution, articles, amendments, etc., and assuming that they are all enforced in the same manner. They aren't. It isn't a constitutional amendment that is related to this lawsuit. It doesn't matter to the states regardless, considering that the clause in question (the commerce clause) mentions only congress, and its allegedly derived ability to mandate purchases from it. So, according to the logic you are using here, the states can't mandate auto insurance anyway. Fortunately, what isn't legal for the Federal Government to do isn't the same as what the state governments may do. If the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is struck down, it will not affect auto insurance laws, nor the individual mandate in Massachusetts etc. Ad hominems are cute though.

Care to enlighten me on my interpretation of the constitution? I honestly don't recall expressing an opinion as to whether or not the individual mandate is unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure that I didn't anyway, considering that I don't bloody know. Regarding Federal laws on car insurance, if they pay for the roads, then they consequently can still dictate whom drives on those roads as a sort of ToU. Funny how that works. I suppose that it wouldn't be unconstitutional then. States could (and I'm pretty certain that all do) still mandate car insurance. This whole discussion seems to be revolving around a complete non-issue.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

You're conflating all parts of the constitution, articles, amendments, etc., and assuming that they are all enforced in the same manner. They aren't. It isn't a constitutional amendment that is related to this lawsuit. It doesn't matter to the states regardless, considering that the clause in question (the commerce clause) mentions only congress, and its allegedly derived ability to mandate purchases from it. So, according to the logic you are using here, the states can't mandate auto insurance anyway. Fortunately, what isn't legal for the Federal Government to do isn't the same as what the state governments may do. If the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is struck down, it will not affect auto insurance laws, nor the individual mandate in Massachusetts etc. Ad hominems are cute though.

coolbeans90

Care to enlighten me on my interpretation of the constitution? I honestly don't recall expressing an opinion as to whether or not the individual mandate is unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure that I didn't anyway, considering that I don't bloody know. Regarding Federal laws on car insurance, if they pay for the roads, then they consequently can still dictate whom drives on those roads as a sort of ToU. Funny how that works. I suppose that it wouldn't be unconstitutional then. States could (and I'm pretty certain that all do) still mandate car insurance. This whole discussion seems to be revolving around a complete non-issue.

Again, you're clueless. The sodomy ruling came about because it was a FEDERAL QUESTION of discrimination against homosexuals. The law only banned sodomy for homosexuals, so the question was, "can a state ban same-sex sodomy only?" The answer was no. The only reason that ruling was handed down is because the sodomy law targeted homosexuals. States can STILL ban sodomy if they write the legislation in a way that bans all citizens from sodomy equally.Go read Lawrence v. Texas. Then come back.

The unconstitutionality of the healthcare law will NOT apply in all fifty states if it deemed to be so. It will apply to the federal government, because that is the issue. The issue is NOT whether states can mandate healt insurance. It's a federal question in federal court of whether Congress can do this under the authority of the commerce clause...not whether a state can do it. States can still do it until somebody sues a state over it, and the Court decides it is also unconstitutional for states to do it.

Communistik

Hold on, have you read Lawrence v. Texas? Because this is an excerpt:

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyIe. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

I cannot think of even the most restrictive possible reading of this that would cause one to arrive at the conclusion that this decision is not more broadly applicable to any consensual private sexual conduct.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] No, the state can't madnate auto insurance ONLY IF the Court rules in favor of YOUR (not THEIR) interpretation of the Constitution. You've already decided that the Commerce Clause stipulates that the federal government cannot regulate auto insurance (which it can and does). that interpretation is not correct. If there is no constitutional amendment related to this lawsuit, then how can the healthcare bill be deemed unconstitutional? :|

Theokhoth

Care to enlighten me on my interpretation of the constitution? I honestly don't recall expressing an opinion as to whether or not the individual mandate is unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure that I didn't anyway, considering that I don't bloody know. Regarding Federal laws on car insurance, if they pay for the roads, then they consequently can still dictate whom drives on those roads as a sort of ToU. Funny how that works. I suppose that it wouldn't be unconstitutional then. States could (and I'm pretty certain that all do) still mandate car insurance. This whole discussion seems to be revolving around a complete non-issue.

If so, then only in the context of referring to the argument put forth in the lawsuit.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Because all of those are expressly forbidden by constitutional amendments. Unlike auto insurance; your analogy is broken. There is a certain article granting the Federal Gov't the ability to regulate interstate commerce, yet not the legal jurisdiction to mandate purchases. And there is no amendment denying specifically state governments from requiring the purchase of insurance. So they may via the 10th amendment. Please get your technicalities in order.

Communistik

Again, you're clueless. The sodomy ruling came about because it was a FEDERAL QUESTION of discrimination against homosexuals. The law only banned sodomy for homosexuals, so the question was, "can a state ban same-sex sodomy only?" The answer was no. The only reason that ruling was handed down is because the sodomy law targeted homosexuals. States can STILL ban sodomy if they write the legislation in a way that bans all citizens from sodomy equally.Go read Lawrence v. Texas. Then come back.

The unconstitutionality of the healthcare law will NOT apply in all fifty states if it deemed to be so. It will apply to the federal government, because that is the issue. The issue is NOT whether states can mandate healt insurance. It's a federal question in federal court of whether Congress can do this under the authority of the commerce clause...not whether a state can do it. States can still do it until somebody sues a state over it, and the Court decides it is also unconstitutional for states to do it.

You've said several times that the Commerce Clause does not reach as far as mandating the purchase of something. . .

Theokhoth

Well it doesn't. All it says is:

"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"

At no point does the clause appear to grant the Congress power to make laws mandating citizens to purchase something.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

You've said several times that the Commerce Clause does not reach as far as mandating the purchase of something. . .

raynimrod

Well it doesn't. All it says is:

"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"

At no point does the clause appear to grant the Congress power to make laws mandating citizens to purchase something.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

You've said several times that the Commerce Clause does not reach as far as mandating the purchase of something. . .

raynimrod

Well it doesn't. All it says is:

"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"

At no point does the clause appear to grant the Congress power to make laws mandating citizens to purchase something.

The argument for the defendant's side is that the ability to mandate purchase falls under the purview of regulation.

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

Again, you're clueless. The sodomy ruling came about because it was a FEDERAL QUESTION of discrimination against homosexuals. The law only banned sodomy for homosexuals, so the question was, "can a state ban same-sex sodomy only?" The answer was no. The only reason that ruling was handed down is because the sodomy law targeted homosexuals. States can STILL ban sodomy if they write the legislation in a way that bans all citizens from sodomy equally.Go read Lawrence v. Texas. Then come back.

The unconstitutionality of the healthcare law will NOT apply in all fifty states if it deemed to be so. It will apply to the federal government, because that is the issue. The issue is NOT whether states can mandate healt insurance. It's a federal question in federal court of whether Congress can do this under the authority of the commerce clause...not whether a state can do it. States can still do it until somebody sues a state over it, and the Court decides it is also unconstitutional for states to do it.

GabuEx

Hold on, have you read Lawrence v. Texas? Because this is an excerpt:

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyIe. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

I cannot think of even the most restrictive possible reading of this that would cause one to arrive at the conclusion that this decision is not more broadly applicable to any consensual private sexual conduct.

Actually, I just realized - are you getting that interpretation of Lawrence v. Texas from this?

"The statute at issue here makes sodomy a crime only if a person 'engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.' Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a) (2003). Sodomy between opposite-sex partners, however, is not a crime in Texas. That is, Texas treats the same conduct differently based solely on the participants. Those harmed by this law are people who have a same-sex sexual orientation and thus are more likely to engage in behavior prohibited by § 21.06."

Because if so, that is the concurring opinion from Justice O'Connor, not the opinion of the Court as delivered by Justice Kennedy.

Can anyone tell me why obama hasn't made healthcare optional rather than mandatory?

Can anyone tell me why obama hasn't made healthcare optional rather than mandatory?

Espada12

Because if the purchase of health insurance is not mandatory, but the coverage of those with pre-existing conditions is, then it ceases to be "health insurance" and instead becomes "let's make this corporation pay for any medical bills I have without actually paying a dime into the pot". You have to have one or the other (mandatory insurance or the ability not to cover someone) in order to make health insurance an actually financially viable product.

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

Again, you're clueless. The sodomy ruling came about because it was a FEDERAL QUESTION of discrimination against homosexuals. The law only banned sodomy for homosexuals, so the question was, "can a state ban same-sex sodomy only?" The answer was no. The only reason that ruling was handed down is because the sodomy law targeted homosexuals. States can STILL ban sodomy if they write the legislation in a way that bans all citizens from sodomy equally.Go read Lawrence v. Texas. Then come back.

The unconstitutionality of the healthcare law will NOT apply in all fifty states if it deemed to be so. It will apply to the federal government, because that is the issue. The issue is NOT whether states can mandate healt insurance. It's a federal question in federal court of whether Congress can do this under the authority of the commerce clause...not whether a state can do it. States can still do it until somebody sues a state over it, and the Court decides it is also unconstitutional for states to do it.

GabuEx

Hold on, have you read Lawrence v. Texas? Because this is an excerpt:

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyIe. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

I cannot think of even the most restrictive possible reading of this that would cause one to arrive at the conclusion that this decision is not more broadly applicable to any consensual private sexual conduct.

I have read Lawrence v. Texas. Yes, a state can still pass an anti-sodomy law without it being automatically null. The opinion contained some sweeping statements, one of which you posted, but question before the court was one that regarded homosexuals, and judgment was directed at laws targeting homosexuals. It is incorrect, as wikipedia and other 'sources' claim, that it automatically invalidated all anti-sodomy laws that ban sodomy universally. Why? Because all sodomy laws that banned it universally were repealed voluntarily prior to this decision, and so they were irrelevant. The Supreme Court has thus never specifically addressed the issue. It's sort of an on-going joke in the legal community, that a state could still legally ban butt sex if it wanted.

But, would it be ruled unconstitutonal if it did make it to the Court (which is inevitably would)? Undoubtedly, so nobody tries.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Can anyone tell me why obama hasn't made healthcare optional rather than mandatory?

GabuEx

Because if the purchase of health insurance is not mandatory, but the coverage of those with pre-existing conditions is, then it ceases to be "health insurance" and instead becomes "let's make this corporation pay for any medical bills I have without actually paying a dime into the pot". You have to have one or the other (mandatory insurance or the ability not to cover someone) in order to make health insurance an actually financially viable product.

They could just not cover those with pre-existing conditions and those who acquire conditions who refuse to get it.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

Again, you're clueless. The sodomy ruling came about because it was a FEDERAL QUESTION of discrimination against homosexuals. The law only banned sodomy for homosexuals, so the question was, "can a state ban same-sex sodomy only?" The answer was no. The only reason that ruling was handed down is because the sodomy law targeted homosexuals. States can STILL ban sodomy if they write the legislation in a way that bans all citizens from sodomy equally.Go read Lawrence v. Texas. Then come back.

The unconstitutionality of the healthcare law will NOT apply in all fifty states if it deemed to be so. It will apply to the federal government, because that is the issue. The issue is NOT whether states can mandate healt insurance. It's a federal question in federal court of whether Congress can do this under the authority of the commerce clause...not whether a state can do it. States can still do it until somebody sues a state over it, and the Court decides it is also unconstitutional for states to do it.

Communistik

Hold on, have you read Lawrence v. Texas? Because this is an excerpt:

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyIe. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

I cannot think of even the most restrictive possible reading of this that would cause one to arrive at the conclusion that this decision is not more broadly applicable to any consensual private sexual conduct.

I have read Lawrence v. Texas. Yes, a state can still pass an anti-sodomy law without it being automatically null. The opinion contained some sweeping statements, one of which you posted, but question before the court was one that regarded homosexuals, and judgment was directed at laws targeting homosexuals. It is incorrect, as wikipedia and other 'sources' claim, that it automatically invalidated all anti-sodomy laws that ban sodomy universally. Why? Because all sodomy laws that banned it universally were repealed voluntarily prior to this decision, and so they were irrelevant. The Supreme Court has thus never specifically addressed the issue. It's sort of an on-going joke in the legal community, that a state could still legally ban butt sex if it wanted.

But, would it be ruled unconstitutonal if it did make it to the Court (which is inevitably would)? Undoubtedly, so nobody tries.

The opinion of the court in Lawrence v. Texas clearly applies without any alteration to any anti-sodomy laws that might be enforced, and indeed to any law of any kind regulating consensual sexual activity between two adults that does not infringe on another's rights. As you yourself admit, any such law would be ruled unconstitutional by the exact same logic as in Lawrence v. Texas. As such, it rather clearly arrived at legal precedent that would render all laws regulating private sexual activity unconstitutional, and therefore the fact that it only specifically struck down a Texas law banning sodomy between homosexual couples is irrelevant. It is neither unreasonable nor incorrect, except under the most strained, technical, legalistic sense, to say that a broad legal precedent established by an opinion of the court makes all that unconstitutional which would be so rendered with the simple re-application of that same precedent.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[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)

sSubZerOo

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..

No-fault is the exception rather than the rule - in most states, you are required to have liability insurance to get your tag & title.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Can anyone tell me why obama hasn't made healthcare optional rather than mandatory?

Espada12

Because if the purchase of health insurance is not mandatory, but the coverage of those with pre-existing conditions is, then it ceases to be "health insurance" and instead becomes "let's make this corporation pay for any medical bills I have without actually paying a dime into the pot". You have to have one or the other (mandatory insurance or the ability not to cover someone) in order to make health insurance an actually financially viable product.

They could just not cover those with pre-existing conditions and those who acquire conditions who refuse to get it.

That's exactly what the current state of affairs was, which led to people being denied coverage for ridiculous reasons such as having been pregnant in the past, or spousal abuse being counted as a pre-existing condition. That was exactly what the health reform law was trying to fix. It's in every insurance company's interest to cover as few people as it possibly, legally can; the health reform law was basically designed to get them to cut that **** out and cover those people.

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Hold on, have you read Lawrence v. Texas? Because this is an excerpt:

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyIe. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

I cannot think of even the most restrictive possible reading of this that would cause one to arrive at the conclusion that this decision is not more broadly applicable to any consensual private sexual conduct.

GabuEx

I have read Lawrence v. Texas. Yes, a state can still pass an anti-sodomy law without it being automatically null. The opinion contained some sweeping statements, one of which you posted, but question before the court was one that regarded homosexuals, and judgment was directed at laws targeting homosexuals. It is incorrect, as wikipedia and other 'sources' claim, that it automatically invalidated all anti-sodomy laws that ban sodomy universally. Why? Because all sodomy laws that banned it universally were repealed voluntarily prior to this decision, and so they were irrelevant. The Supreme Court has thus never specifically addressed the issue. It's sort of an on-going joke in the legal community, that a state could still legally ban butt sex if it wanted.

But, would it be ruled unconstitutonal if it did make it to the Court (which is inevitably would)? Undoubtedly, so nobody tries.

The opinion of the court in Lawrence v. Texas clearly applies without any alteration to any anti-sodomy laws that might be enforced. As you yourself admit, any such law would be ruled unconstitutional by the exact same logic as in Lawrence v. Texas. As such, it rather clearly arrived at legal precedent that would render all laws regulating private sexual activity unconstitutional, and therefore the fact that it only specifically struck down a Texas law banning sodomy between homosexual couples is irrelevant. It is neither unreasonable nor incorrect, except under the most strained, technical, legalistic sense, to say that a broad legal precedent established by an opinion of the court makes all that unconstitutional which would be so rendered with the simple re-application of that same precedent.

You are entitled to your own opinion of course, but when it comes to the technicality of the law and court opinions, I don't think you want to tread into the territory of what constitutes "reasonableness" or "unreasonableness." That is a vast, vast ocean of on-going controversy.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

You've said several times that the Commerce Clause does not reach as far as mandating the purchase of something. . .

Theokhoth

Well it doesn't. All it says is:

"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"

At no point does the clause appear to grant the Congress power to make laws mandating citizens to purchase something.

Firstly, among the several states suggests that commerce between states (say, Florida and Texas) or commerce that affects more than one state, should be regulated. If the founders listed three explicit types of commerce, then there's obviously a type of commerce that was excluded - the commerce within a state. If commerce within a state wasn't explicitly left out, there would be no need to specify between the types commerce that Congress can legitimately regulate.

If the founders wanted to grant the Congress power to regulate all foreign and domestic commerce, the clause would have said that Congress has the power to "regulate all commerce".

Also, nowhere else in the constituion does the word "regulate" equte to "mandate". In every clause or ammendment of the constitution, the word "regulate" means to make regular, or to make uniform (structured). The Congress has the power to regulate money and elections, and yet it can't mandate that people have money and partake in elections.

Kennedy will likely vote on the "unconstitutional" side. In that case, hopefully certain other regulations, like no lifetime caps on coverage, can remain in place. I also hope that the provision that allows the federal government to fund different systems if they retain the coverage and cost of the original remain in place.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

I have read Lawrence v. Texas. Yes, a state can still pass an anti-sodomy law without it being automatically null. The opinion contained some sweeping statements, one of which you posted, but question before the court was one that regarded homosexuals, and judgment was directed at laws targeting homosexuals. It is incorrect, as wikipedia and other 'sources' claim, that it automatically invalidated all anti-sodomy laws that ban sodomy universally. Why? Because all sodomy laws that banned it universally were repealed voluntarily prior to this decision, and so they were irrelevant. The Supreme Court has thus never specifically addressed the issue. It's sort of an on-going joke in the legal community, that a state could still legally ban butt sex if it wanted.

But, would it be ruled unconstitutonal if it did make it to the Court (which is inevitably would)? Undoubtedly, so nobody tries.

Communistik

The opinion of the court in Lawrence v. Texas clearly applies without any alteration to any anti-sodomy laws that might be enforced. As you yourself admit, any such law would be ruled unconstitutional by the exact same logic as in Lawrence v. Texas. As such, it rather clearly arrived at legal precedent that would render all laws regulating private sexual activity unconstitutional, and therefore the fact that it only specifically struck down a Texas law banning sodomy between homosexual couples is irrelevant. It is neither unreasonable nor incorrect, except under the most strained, technical, legalistic sense, to say that a broad legal precedent established by an opinion of the court makes all that unconstitutional which would be so rendered with the simple re-application of that same precedent.

You are entitled to your own opinion of course, but when it comes to the technicality of the law and court opinions, I don't think you want to tread into the territory of what constitutes "reasonableness" or "unreasonableness." That is a vast, vast ocean of on-going controversy.

The question before us is simple: If a state drafted a law banning sodomy between all persons, and if this law were brought before the Supreme Court with a challenge against its constitutionality, would it be struck down as unconstitutional?

The answer is yes. You yourself have affirmed that it is yes. Which is basically the essence of what Theokhoth was saying. Anything else is just a technical quibble.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Because if the purchase of health insurance is not mandatory, but the coverage of those with pre-existing conditions is, then it ceases to be "health insurance" and instead becomes "let's make this corporation pay for any medical bills I have without actually paying a dime into the pot". You have to have one or the other (mandatory insurance or the ability not to cover someone) in order to make health insurance an actually financially viable product.

GabuEx

They could just not cover those with pre-existing conditions and those who acquire conditions who refuse to get it.

That's exactly what the current state of affairs was, which led to people being denied coverage for ridiculous reasons such as having been pregnant in the past, or spousal abuse being counted as a pre-existing condition. That was exactly what the health reform law was trying to fix. It's in every insurance company's interest to cover as few people as it possibly, legally can; the health reform law was basically designed to get them to cut that **** out and cover those people.

Oh I thought this was like government run insurance rather than forcing corporations. We have NIS here and that's government controlled.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

They could just not cover those with pre-existing conditions and those who acquire conditions who refuse to get it.

Espada12

That's exactly what the current state of affairs was, which led to people being denied coverage for ridiculous reasons such as having been pregnant in the past, or spousal abuse being counted as a pre-existing condition. That was exactly what the health reform law was trying to fix. It's in every insurance company's interest to cover as few people as it possibly, legally can; the health reform law was basically designed to get them to cut that **** out and cover those people.

Oh I thought this was like government run insurance rather than forcing corporations. We have NIS here and that's government controlled.

No, although the phrase "government takeover of health care" has been a rather popular term in the health care reform debate, nothing in the health care reform law mandates either that the government provide everyone's health care or that the government provide everyone's health insurance. Health care is still private in the US outside of Medicare and Medicaid.

Thank God I live in a country with public healthcare. I happily pay the 1.5% Medicare levy that most people pay to fund it. It costs me $375 a year and it gives me more guarantees than any private health insurance could

daqua_99

[QUOTE="daqua_99"]

Thank God I live in a country with public healthcare. I happily pay the 1.5% Medicare levy that most people pay to fund it. It costs me $375 a year and it gives me more guarantees than any private health insurance could

DigitalExile

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

[QUOTE="daqua_99"]

Thank God I live in a country with public healthcare. I happily pay the 1.5% Medicare levy that most people pay to fund it. It costs me $375 a year and it gives me more guarantees than any private health insurance could

DroidPhysX

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

I would disagree with your cost/benefit analysis. Most people aren't going to rack up insurmountable amounts of debt. On a separate note, would you by chance consider drinking worth the benefits? (I am not asking about legality here) Regardless, I am not particularly inclined to force people to make what I consider to be the best decisions for their own well being.

coolbeans90

The cost/benefit analysis still seems to be a subjective opinion. It will benefit many, it will burn a few. One by not helping someone isn't harming them. They are simply not helping them. The optimal level of social welfare is a subject worthy of its own discussion. All of those programs that you mention clearly serve a public interest. The only conceivable way that I see universal health insurance serving the general public at large as opposed to a zero-sum game is via health-care industry cost reduction in a single-payer system. (as opposed to the current bill in discussion)

And universal health care, whether it be implemented as a single-payer system a la Medicare or through the private sector like with Obamacare, clearly serves the general public at large. Objectively, there is little difference between having a medicare-for all health care system and Obamacare, except that the former would probably be a bit more efficient and other minor technicalities. The two systems function somewhat differently but they produce pretty much the same exact results in the end.

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

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

Who cares that it will save money and it will cost us a few hundred billion to repeal it. Who cares that a whole lot more people will get healthcare due to this bill because if it goes into full effect Obama will get a win, and that can't be allowed to happen!!!

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] You're right that most people aren't going to rack up insurmountable amounts of debt, but considering how much you don't know about the state of your health at any given time, the amount of money you might save from not purchasing health insurance doesn't in any sense outweigh the risk involved. By any standard you are much better off with health insurance than without, and by not having insurance you are inflicting a substantial amount of harm on the rest of the public who has insurance or needs insurance but can't acquire it because of pre-existing conditions. We already force people to pay for police protection, the fire department, roads, education, military, ect. because it is in their best interest to have these things. Health insurance is just as important as these things to the general public. -Sun_Tzu-

The cost/benefit analysis still seems to be a subjective opinion. It will benefit many, it will burn a few. One by not helping someone isn't harming them. They are simply not helping them. The optimal level of social welfare is a subject worthy of its own discussion. All of those programs that you mention clearly serve a public interest. The only conceivable way that I see universal health insurance serving the general public at large as opposed to a zero-sum game is via health-care industry cost reduction in a single-payer system. (as opposed to the current bill in discussion)

And universal health care, whether it be implemented as a single-payer system a la Medicare or through the private sector like with Obamacare, clearly serves the general public at large. Objectively, there is little difference between having a medicare-for all health care system and Obamacare, except that the former would probably be a bit more efficient and other minor technicalities. The two systems function somewhat differently but they produce pretty much the same exact results in the end.

I didn't state that it was a cost/benefit analysis, at least on an aggregate level. However, it is the way individuals will evaluate whether or not a purchase, such as insurance, is worth its cost. By a simple metric, money, would many whom choose to go without health insurance would benefit. That you say otherwise is beyond puzzling.

Obamacare would produce significantly different results than a single-payer system with respect to cost. These systems are quite complex, and merely having a larger portion of the population insured won't close the cost gap. This is due primarily to the fact that the insurance system isn't monopolized under Obamacare, and consequently the system doesn't have the ability to dictate price levels for medical care, unlike single-payer systems. However, it might have a minor impact due to preventative care for the currently uninsured, but that's really the only measure towards cost reduction on national health-care expenditures as a whole. And furthermore, I would disagree upon the point that having a universal coverage health-care system inherently benefits the public at large.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Because if the purchase of health insurance is not mandatory, but the coverage of those with pre-existing conditions is, then it ceases to be "health insurance" and instead becomes "let's make this corporation pay for any medical bills I have without actually paying a dime into the pot". You have to have one or the other (mandatory insurance or the ability not to cover someone) in order to make health insurance an actually financially viable product.

GabuEx

They could just not cover those with pre-existing conditions and those who acquire conditions who refuse to get it.

That's exactly what the current state of affairs was, which led to people being denied coverage for ridiculous reasons such as having been pregnant in the past, or spousal abuse being counted as a pre-existing condition. That was exactly what the health reform law was trying to fix. It's in every insurance company's interest to cover as few people as it possibly, legally can; the health reform law was basically designed to get them to cut that **** out and cover those people.

Gabu, this is the admirable part of health care reform and was needed. The part I have a problem with is telling me I have to buy health insurance or pay a fine. Where does that fine money go and what is it used for? It is unconscionable for the federal government to tell you you have to buy something and fine you if you don't. What makes it even worse, is the government will not be forced into using said mandatory insurance or paying said fines for not having it (instead continue on relying on taxpayer paid for medical services).

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

They could just not cover those with pre-existing conditions and those who acquire conditions who refuse to get it.

WhiteKnight77

That's exactly what the current state of affairs was, which led to people being denied coverage for ridiculous reasons such as having been pregnant in the past, or spousal abuse being counted as a pre-existing condition. That was exactly what the health reform law was trying to fix. It's in every insurance company's interest to cover as few people as it possibly, legally can; the health reform law was basically designed to get them to cut that **** out and cover those people.

Gabu, this is the admirable part of health care reform and was needed. The part I have a problem with is telling me I have to buy health insurance or pay a fine. Where does that fine money go and what is it used for? It is unconscionable for the federal government to tell you you have to buy something and fine you if you don't. What makes it even worse, is the government will not be forced into using said mandatory insurance or paying said fines for not having it (instead continue on relying on taxpayer paid for medical services).

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Gabu, this is the admirable part of health care reform and was needed. The part I have a problem with is telling me I have to buy health insurance or pay a fine. Where does that fine money go and what is it used for? It is unconscionable for the federal government to tell you you have to buy something and fine you if you don't. What makes it even worse, is the government will not be forced into using said mandatory insurance or paying said fines for not having it (instead continue on relying on taxpayer paid for medical services).

DroidPhysX

I think you miss the point. Instead of federal (outside of the military) employees relying on taxpayer paid for medical care, they should have to buy into private health care or pay the very fines that you or I would have to pay if we were not insured.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

They could just not cover those with pre-existing conditions and those who acquire conditions who refuse to get it.

WhiteKnight77

That's exactly what the current state of affairs was, which led to people being denied coverage for ridiculous reasons such as having been pregnant in the past, or spousal abuse being counted as a pre-existing condition. That was exactly what the health reform law was trying to fix. It's in every insurance company's interest to cover as few people as it possibly, legally can; the health reform law was basically designed to get them to cut that **** out and cover those people.

Gabu, this is the admirable part of health care reform and was needed. The part I have a problem with is telling me I have to buy health insurance or pay a fine. Where does that fine money go and what is it used for? It is unconscionable for the federal government to tell you you have to buy something and fine you if you don't. What makes it even worse, is the government will not be forced into using said mandatory insurance or paying said fines for not having it (instead continue on relying on taxpayer paid for medical services).

You can't tell me that that was needed, but that the mandate was not. You literally can't. There is no way to get one without the other, unless something more extreme (by US standards) like single-payer health insurance was instituted. Preventing health insurance companies from refusing to cover those with pre-existing conditions while not instituting a mandate that everyone needs to purchase health insurance would have bankrupted health insurance companies. The purpose of the fine is to get people to buy health insurance, and the government will subsidize those who can't afford to.

You're not alone in this, though; polls have shown that the public wants the government to prevent the health insurance companies from pulling those shenanigans, but does not want the government to actually institute measures that will make that possible. This is basically wanting something for nothing, which is rather common among the public, and is why we're in such a mess.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]Australia ftw.

surrealnumber5

Most in raw numbers or most per capita?

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] No man, you gotta pay the most money for the 37th ranked healthcare.

chessmaster1989

Most in raw numbers or most per capita?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] correct me if im wrong but dont we spend the most on gov healthcare programs too?surrealnumber5

Most in raw numbers or most per capita?

I must confess I don't know off the top of my head whether or not we pay the most per capita (which is the more important metric), though it wouldn't surprise me if we spend the most in raw numbers simply because we have a large population and the largest GDP in the world.