Court rRuling on Obamacare

[Stavros]

Many people (I see a lot of foreigners) have argued that it is perfectly okay for the government to demand that everyone buys health insurance because people who drive cars have to have insurance. Firstly, drivers have to have insurance for their automobile, not for themselves. Secondly, the laws regarding car insurance are determined by each individual State.

I raised the point about car insurance -and I admit it was a weak one- because of the argument that for the first time your Federal govt was forcing US citizens to buy a product from the private sector.

In the UK our health service is paid for by a tax that is deducted at source, ie from wages -but it is first and foremost a service not a business, even if there are billions of £ circulating in the 'health industry- -what also concerns us in the UK are the policies of a coalition government that seek to dismantle the health service we have and make it more commercial, as the US health care 'industry' is perceived to be. Defenders of the UK system who have been arguing for years that the US road is one we don't want to go down on, can now argue that if anything, the US is waking up to the benefits of a European model. No system is perfect, and they all have in-built tendencies to bureaucratic muddle, but morally a service available to all that is free at the time of need is a human right, not a market choice.

As for Hanoverian Swine -is this supposed to be a reference to the Royal Family? That dynasty died in 1901 with the Queen-Empress Victoria. Her son and successor, Edward VII was the son of Albert, whose royal line passed through Saxe-Coburg und Gotha, a name that was changed to Windsor in July 1917 for obvious political reasons (just as many towns in the US and Canada named after German places were re-named).

[Stavros]

I know this isn't addressed to me so I apologize if I am speaking out of turn. In previous cases, below are a couple of examples of things that have been considered interestate commerce. Marijuana someone was growing on his property in one state. Wheat that someone grew for his own personal consumption. In this latter case, the wheat that someone grew for his own consumption was said to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce because the federal government was attempting to fix the price of wheat. If many farmers were to grow wheat for their own consumption, it would greatly reduce the demand for wheat in interstate commerce and thwart the purpose of the legislation.

The Commerce Clause has been interpreted very broadly because actions that are taken intra-state exert effects far beyond the borders of that state. In fact, the Civil Rights Act was passed under the Commerce Clause because if businesses discriminated based on prohibited factors such as race, sex, national origin, etc. it would have an effect on interstate commerce because people from various ethnic backgrounds would not be able to do business where such practices were prevalent.

So, even though it's counter-intuitive, the Commerce Clause gives the Federal government broad authority to create a comprehensive program to regulate certain types of commercial activity when states cannot because of political pressures. States have individual pressures to attract insurance business for instance by having the most permissive laws. They also have pressure to discriminate against out of staters, which is prohibited by the so-called dormant commerce clause which limits a state's ability to create laws that would interfere with the federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce even in the absence of federal legislation. For instance if a state wanted to make it illegal to drive a tractor trailer on their highways, it would violate the dormant commerce clause. Even though there may be no federal law on point, it would exert a negative effect on interstate commerce that would usurp the federal government's authority.

But the most important issue is that the Supreme Court usually respects precedent. The principle of stare decisis says that previous interpretations by a court are controlling on issues said to fall within that holding. So, Justices such as Scalia, have pressure to find artificial distinctions to claim they are not breaking with precedent.

Finally, many Republicans like to quote the state's rights argument, claiming that activities that have traditionally been carried out by the states are powers exclusively held by them. However, our 10th amendment says that those powers that the constitution does not delegate to the federal government reside in the states. So, if it falls within the ambit of an enumerated power given to the federal government, then federal law trumps state law.

Thanks for the clarification Broncofan, although we are aware of 'state's rights' sometimes the legal arguments people make don't appear to make sense without an explanation. Perhaps health care in the US should be viewed in the same way as defence...whatever happens I suspect this issue has still some way to go even if, as The Guardian reported yesterday, John Boehner and some other House Republicans now feel they should move on to other issues.

[loren]

As for Hanoverian Swine -is this supposed to be a reference to the Royal Family? That dynasty died in 1901 with the Queen-Empress Victoria. Her son and successor, Edward VII was the son of Albert, whose royal line passed through Saxe-Coburg und Gotha, a name that was changed to Windsor in July 1917 for obvious political reasons (just as many towns in the US and Canada named after German places were re-named).

I thought that the Hanovererians had renamed their own house and then changed it to Windsor in 1917. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Prospero]

Salon has analysis piece that suggests that - despite yesterday's ruling - SCOTUS has now swung further to the Right with Kennedy's decision to vote with the Conservatives.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/29/anth..._the_radicals/

[Ben]

[Ben]

I can't speak for anyone else, my major objection to obamacare is the Federal usurpation of power. Health care is not a Federal issue, it is an issue that should be left to the individual State's. Many people (I see a lot of foreigners) have argued that it is perfectly okay for the government to demand that everyone buys health insurance because people who drive cars have to have insurance. Firstly, drivers have to have insurance for their automobile, not for themselves. Secondly, the laws regarding car insurance are determined by each individual State.

Fortunately for me, the State of Missouri voted on and passed an ammendment to the State's constitution. We soundly rejected the individual mandate. However if the Governor or State legislation were to try to go back on that; or if obama were to try to force it on us, I will NEVER submit to it.

In Canada it started out as a provincial &/or state issue, as it were.
First adopted by Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan. Until it was universally adopted by the federal government.
And, too, it's what most Americans want. If you look at polls/surveys. You can't say socialized medicine. Because that word scares us -- ha ha! ha! (And, too, health care costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy in America.)
So denying Americans single-payer is really an attack on democracy, meaningful democracy....
And, too, universal health care goes against what we've been taught since infancy. Ya know, why should I care about anyone else? (In neoclassical economics you're what's defined as a: rational wealth maximizer. Ya know, no one else matters but me.
So, global warming or trashing the environment or pollution simply don't matter. Future generations don't matter. Because I'm strictly rational; I care about maximizing my own wealth. And who cares about anyone else.
So, a universal system of care and caring goes AGAINST everything we've been taught.
So an unwillingness to embrace single-payer does make sense. It's very rational. Again, why should anyone else matter but me.
But it certainly goes against what Adam Smith said: the core of being a human being is a concern for others.)

[NYBURBS]

Smart call, Flabbybody...

A few thoughts:

1) Having lost the case at this juncture, the Tea Party must now either campaign on an 'opt out' provision that Romney says he will introduce if elected; or turn their attention to something else in revenge;

2) I note in the report in The Guardian just now this note on the case against:
"... lawyers for 26 US states challenging the legislation said Congress went beyond its powers by, for the first time in its history, requiring people to buy a product from the private sector."
-Surely all US citizens are obliged to buy car insurance? Doesn't this therefore mean that there is a law which obliges US citizens who drive to buy a product from the private sector?

3) Does the concept of 'interstate commerce' mean insurance? I do understand that health is big business, in the UK as well as everywhere else, but to me my first reaction is to call it a service: surely it cannot be health-care in the US that is considered 'interstate commerce'? Apologies for my ignorance on this.

Perhaps Obamacare should now become Obama Cares...?

Traditionally, insurance was not thought to be commerce, and has been regulated at the state level. As for being forced to buy car insurance, that is done under the Police Powers that each state retained, it's a much broader power than anything granted to the federal government. So the states have always been able to mandate that you buy car insurance or health insurance, the issue here was whether Congress could do the same under it's commerce clause power. Obviously, the decision was that they could not, but that they can tax you (a distinction without too much meaning though lol).

[Prospero]

....

[buttslinger]

American children win, Republican children lose. Roberts saves dignity of SCROTUS.

[onmyknees]

You libs are a sad lot....when a conservative justice votes with the 4 predictably liberal justices, you shower him with accolades...similar to your post about the dignity. Yet when a liberal justice votes with the predictably conservative justices..................oh wait....... That never happens so we don't know quite how you'd react !! LMFAO. As Roberts said in his comments....it's up to the electorate to resolve all this. And we will. This thing was a disgrace from the sleezy vote buying to pass it to Nancy Pelosi famously suggesting we had to pass it to find out what was in it. You can't pass legislation that fundementally changes the 1/6 of the economy by ramming it through with no opposition votes....none. Not one.... it has to be consencious. It's still unpopular. Deal with that fact. It's never been about universal coverage...ever. It's about moving towards the liberal goal of government controled health care.

Now please tell me why children will be so much better off under Obama Care.