SCOTUS and Affordable Care Act

I don't think a tax credit can be construed as a tax on those who don't get it. Yes, you can tax everyone $100 and then give everyone but certain people the credit - I understand that.

But the court has already stated in preliminary rounds that they don't think you can compel people to buy insurance and your line or reasoning won't fly.

 

Which "preliminary rounds" are you referring to? Which court? That's the part I'm not understanding.

The USSC hasn't stated anything. Of all the federal courts that have covered the various HCR cases, more have upheld it than dismissed it.

 

My prediction is 5-4.

One man decides it.

 

I was reading about this yesterday. What seems to have befuddled those that follow the Court is that the Commerce Clause has been used to regulate business based on interstate transactions. Now the government is seeking to use the Clause to regulate the lack of a transaction.

 

I believe the argument that the government made was that the transaction is the use of the health care system - insurance is simply the method of payment. So their claim is that everyone uses the health care system regardless, and that is what is being regulated. Whether that has any merit, I have no idea.

 

You can fly with that argument, given that insurance premiums are a paid price for healthcare services based on a fair-market calculated value of the probability you will go to the hospital+a transaction fee/markup. If you got rid of the markup, it'd fly perfectly (single-payer).

 

I wouldn't have the first idea how to predict this. I don't know anything about Constitutional law and I barely know anything about this Supreme Court. Everything I've read has been reasonable speculation but there's been reasonable speculation supporting every iteration in the poll.

What I do know, per his own post on page one, is never to try to flush Space Ghost down a pipe.

 

or 3 women.

 

It must pain you that the Supreme Court is finally becoming gender-representative, mostly under the purview of the Obama Administration.

Or maybe Ginsburg, Sotomayor, or Kagan have Cherokee blood.

 

Now now BJ. No need for personal insults.

 

I guess we're both prophets!

Are you working for the dark side?

 

Through taxes the gov forces Americans to pay for:

-Schools and teachers regardless of whether or not they have children.
-Police and Fireman whether they use thier services or not.
-Roads, highways, and public transportation regardless of if/when one uses them.
-Stadiums and arenas. Wars, ships, plains, and guns. Public defenders...

If you drive a car the law requires that you purchase, from a private sector entity, automobile insurance. The law also requires vehicles to be inspected for safety, one must purchase this inspection from a private sector entity.

In order to hold a concealed hadgun license, one must take a course and past a test. Typically offered by a private sector entity.

If you are caught operating a motor vehicle without automobile insurance or an up to date inspection you will be fined. If you are caught with a concealed handgun without a license you will be fined.

Universal healthcare WILL HAPPEN. The only choice in the matter is Taxation or Mandate.

 

The mandate will be struck down, which further **** up the already mess of a bill it is.

 

This is true, however congress does have the constitutional right to regulate commerce and act on issues that need to be solved on a national level.

If states refused to require auto insurance, I'm confident that congress would address it. Simular to the way the feds forced the states to up the legal age to drink awhile back.

Usually, the feds use this tactic to prevent or prohibit something. Like drinking, or the FDA blocking a food or drug. For example, a poison apple will kill people whether they're in Michigan or Florida. There's no need to wait for the states to individually ban the poison apples, the Fed has the jurisdiction to.

The fed addressed a national issue by requiring rather than forbidding. The Gov takes away our "freedom and liberty " everyday by forbidding. So why is requiring (something states have long been doing) unconstitutional? Especially when that requirement is addressing a national commerce issue.

 

The first, second and fourth items aren't completely true as they're funded at a non-federal level and I don't know if they're explicitly required by federal law. Does the federal government have compulsory education laws or have they just upheld state and local ones?

 

earlier this year the SC had made some comments.

Anyway, in two days we'll know so why debate this too much?

 

Hopefully we just get Universal Healthcare. Insurance works because of its large pool, and what better pool than every person in the US.

We have the most expensive healthcare in the world, but we only rank in 37th in the world according to the WHO in "overall level and distribution of health [to] the populations."

 

Struck down right down party lines.

 

w/ the exception of defense, the rest are all local/state issues, not federal.

crucial distinction is the government does not force you to drive.