Supreme Court Health Care Decision Thread

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I have argued at length that if the ACA were funded via the general fund (tax) then it would not violate the commerce clause. Guess SCOTUS agrees.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

For a long time I argued that the individual mandate was OK as a tax, and even after I accepted the government's CC argument, I still wondered why they wouldn't argue (legally, that is, as opposed to politically) that it's a tax.

Don't know about you but I took some heat for that argument. I kept arguing that I didn't know if technically the mandate was unconstitutional but clearly had congress simply levied a tax it would be. Others seemed to know that it was unconstitutional. I wonder if they know still? Suppose so. Not sure why a split decision would change their minds. It's not that compelling in all honesty. I can't say for certain that I know one way or the other.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

So a question for the legal minds here: is the holding on the CC authority dictum since it wasn't necessary to dispose of the controversy before the court? If not, does it change anything wrt CC authority jurisprudence?

As to the first question I'm not sure but I suspect maybe so because the CC and tax issues were not presented as separate questions, were they? The question presented was whether the mandate is constitutional, and CC and tax were offered as arguments in the alternative in support of constitutionality. If that's right, I'd be inclined to say that the CC stuff is dicta because the Court could have skipped over it and rendered the decision on the tax power alone.

Having said that, I don't think it matters very much. Maybe tipping my hand a little bit on my own views of the government's argument, but I think the Court is basically right to say that accepting the Government's argument here would have worked a major expansion to existing Commerce Clause doctrine; rejecting it leaves the status quo in place. I can't think of any statute upheld on Commerce Clause grounds that would need to be revisited in light of the Court's discussion of activity/inactivity, can you?

[Brown]

Originally Posted by Vorticity

Re prediction 8 above: Which part of the ACA was not upheld by the SCOTUS?

First response, from the Chief's opinion:

Quote:

The States also contend that the Medicaid expansion exceeds Congress's authority under the Spending Clause. They claim that Congress is coercing the States to adopt the changes it wants by threatening to withhold all of a State's Medicaid grants, unless the State accepts the new expanded funding and complies with the conditions that come with it. This, they argue, violates the basic principle that the "Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program."
...
Permitting the Federal Government to force the States to implement a federal program would threaten the political accountability key to our federal system.
...
The States claim that this threat serves no purpose other than to force unwilling States to sign up for the dramatic expansion in health care coverage effected by the Act.

Given the nature of the threat and the programs at issue here, we must agree. We have upheld Congress's authority to condition the receipt of funds on the States' complying with restrictions on the use of those funds, because that is the means by which Congress ensures that the funds are spent according to its view of the "general Welfare." Conditions that do not here govern the use of the funds, however, cannot be justified on that basis.
...
In this case, the financial "inducement" Congress has chosen is much more than "relatively mild encouragement"—it is a gun to the head.

I suspect there will be more analysis of this issue later, after everyone is done focusing on the mandate.

Second response: I'm still waiting for Fox "News" to tell me! I suspect they've already reported about a bajillion times that there were remarks criticizing the wisdom of the Act and I suspect they will somehow be working to twist the ruling in some bizarre unrealistic fashion, perhaps in the belief that their audience is too dumb to realize it.

Third response: This prediction was part of the "predictions" thread, and (like the "professional" seers) I do not claim 100 percent accuracy. I just claim to be better than the "professionals." Sooo.... has Rmoney promised to appoint someone like Scalia yet?

[marksman]

I think it's dicta, but Supreme Court dicta is still pretty darn persuasive. That said, a future Supreme Court would have no problem ignoring what was written about the Commerce Clause (and the Necessary and Proper Clause) if they were so inclined.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

As to the first question I'm not sure but I suspect maybe so because the CC and tax issues were not presented as separate questions, were they? The question presented was whether the mandate is constitutional, and CC and tax were offered as arguments in the alternative in support of constitutionality. If that's right, I'd be inclined to say that the CC stuff is dicta because the Court could have skipped over it and rendered the decision on the tax power alone.

IIRC, the government offered the tax argument in the alternative, but not at all enthusiastically (especially in oral argumentation).

Quote:

Having said that, I don't think it matters very much. Maybe tipping my hand a little bit on my own views of the government's argument, but I think the Court is basically right to say that accepting the Government's argument here would have worked a major expansion to existing Commerce Clause doctrine; rejecting it leaves the status quo in place. I can't think of any statute upheld on Commerce Clause grounds that would need to be revisited in light of the Court's discussion of activity/inactivity, can you?

I guess not, but I still don't buy the "inactivity" line of thinking.

In Wickard v. Filburn, what if the over quota wheat were actually burned rather than used on the farm? Then the farmer would have had to buy wheat on the open market. The real "activity" that triggered the CC authority was the fact that farmers (in aggregate) were refraining from buying wheat on the open market, and that made managing that essential market unpredictable. That is, we were counting on them needing to consume some amount of wheat from the market on the farms (as livestock feed or whatever), and they didn't.

In the case at hand, none of the state plaintiffs (the actual people who gave the lawsuits standing) had in fact done nothing. In fact, they all had moved in and out of coverage over the years. And they all had received healthcare of one type or another. (One of them actually filed for bankruptcy protection due to medical bills just a day or so before oral arguments.) This activity, taken in aggregate, has a measurable and significant impact on interstate commerce (just as the farmers' "activity" of not buying the wheat they consumed had significant impact on the wheat market).

[grunion]

Nice capture of the moment...

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by marksman

I think it's dicta, but Supreme Court dicta is still pretty darn persuasive. That said, a future Supreme Court would have no problem ignoring what was written about the Commerce Clause (and the Necessary and Proper Clause) if they were so inclined.

I think that's about what I think about it. As JamesDillon says, though, it wouldn't change anything. It's hard to imagine something else that would be similar enough to this to point to this holding but different enough not to have the tax argument.

[rustypouch]

Originally Posted by Brown

First response, from the Chief's opinion:I suspect there will be more analysis of this issue later, after everyone is done focusing on the mandate.

Second response: I'm still waiting for Fox "News" to tell me! I suspect they've already reported about a bajillion times that there were remarks criticizing the wisdom of the Act and I suspect they will somehow be working to twist the ruling in some bizarre unrealistic fashion, perhaps in the belief that their audience is to dumb to realize it.

Third response: This prediction was part of the "predictions" thread, and (like the "professional" seers) I do not claim 100 percent accuracy. I just claim to be better than the "professionals." Sooo.... has Rmoney promised to appoint someone like Scalia yet?

It seems Fox is saying it was a Republican idea, and implying that Romney was for it, before he was against it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...heckered-past/

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Don't know about you but I took some heat for that argument. I kept arguing that I didn't know if technically the mandate was unconstitutional but clearly had congress simply levied a tax it would be. Others seemed to know that it was unconstitutional. I wonder if they know still? Suppose so. Not sure why a split decision would change their minds. It's not that compelling in all honesty. I can't say for certain that I know one way or the other.

Well, prior to oral arguments, I was pretty certain the government's CC argument would win easily, but backed off of that after. I was hoping, but less confident.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

IIRC, the government offered the tax argument in the alternative, but not at all enthusiastically (especially in oral argumentation).


I guess not, but I still don't buy the "inactivity" line of thinking.

Like any line, there are blurry edges, but it makes sense to me as both an intuitive limit and implicit in the concept of "regulation." I think Roberts's opinion makes the argument very well.

Quote:

In Wickard v. Filburn, what if the over quota wheat were actually burned rather than used on the farm? Then the farmer would have had to buy what on the open market. The real "activity" that triggered the CC authority was the fact that farmers (in aggregate) were refraining from buying wheat on the open market, and that made managing that essential market unpredictable. That is, we were counting on them needing to consume some amount of wheat from the market on the farms (as livestock feed or whatever), and they didn't.

So Congress could, under its Commerce Clause authority, have mandated that every farmer purchase X bushels of wheat on the open market regardless of their individual need? To the extent that farmers are participants in the wheat market, it's because of some affirmative commercial activity they have undertaken-- and whether you want to designate that as growing wheat, as the Wickard Court did, or raising livestock (i.e., the activity that defines them as "farmers" rather than ordinary citizens), I still see that as qualitatively different from being mere passive non-participants in the given market.

Quote:

In the case at hand, none of the state plaintiffs (the actual people who gave the lawsuits standing) had in fact done nothing. In fact, they all had moved in and out of coverage over the years. And they all had received healthcare of one type or another. (One of them actually filed for bankruptcy protection due to medical bills just a day or so before oral arguments.) This activity, taken in aggregate, has a measurable and significant impact on interstate commerce (just as the farmers' "activity" of not buying the wheat they consumed had significant impact on the wheat market).

Again I think Roberts's opinion addresses this well. Look at his car analogy-- someone who purchased a car two years ago, and who might purchase another car again in a couple of years, is in no realistic sense an active participant in the car-buying market today. And that's true notwithstanding the fact that economic inactivity has effects on interstate commerce. Everything we don't do-- consciously or not-- has some effect on interstate commerce. I think the opponents of the act are quite right to stress the absence of any limiting principle here-- once we accept the economic effects of commercial inactivity as a valid basis for Congressional action under the Commerce Clause, it seems like there's literally nothing Congress can't legislate. And maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing; I'm not an ardent states-rightist and would be more or less fine giving Congress plenary authority over all aspects of national life, but I do think that's a clear deviation from the constitutional plan and should be adopted by deliberate amendment rather than judicial reinterpretation.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Brown

I have previously predicted the following:Predictions 8 and 8a have proven correct. Except for the part about someone being ill, I expect prediction 8b to be close to coming true.

How does Medicare and 8a co-exist?

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Obama's most significant achievement is ruled a tax increase on poor and middle-income Americans.

Conservative messaging often impresses me, and their quick, unified response to this is no exception. Everybody just gets on board.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

I agree, reality is on Obama's side, but the meme could stick. Those talking points will take much longer then a 30 second TV ad to explain.

There is a clip circulating with Romney saying the mandate is about personal responsibility. He's tried to weasel out claiming that's OK for states but not the Fed. The clip speaks louder than the weasel.

Originally Posted by DavidJames

The cynical part of me wonders if Roberts actually considered the political fallout of the tax bit.

I always hoped Roberts was more like Judge Jones of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, more law and less ideology. The three extremists on the court, Scalia, Thomas & Alito seem to be more about using their positions to get the right wing government they want.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Cain

Conservative messaging often impresses me, and their quick, unified response to this is no exception. Everybody just gets on board.

The Karl Rove Playbook is still their key textbook.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

So Congress could, under its Commerce Clause authority, have mandated that every farmer purchase X bushels of wheat on the open market regardless of their individual need? To the extent that farmers are participants in the wheat market, it's because of some affirmative commercial activity they have undertaken-- and whether you want to designate that as growing wheat, as the Wickard Court did, or raising livestock (i.e., the activity that defines them as "farmers" rather than ordinary citizens), I still see that as qualitatively different from being mere passive non-participants in the given market.

It strikes me somewhat as a false equivalency. I say somewhat because I do recognize the parallels but suspect the devil actually resides somewhere in the differences.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by RandFan

It strikes me somewhat as a false equivalency. I say somewhat because I do recognize the parallels but suspect the devil actually resides somewhere in the differences.

Can you elaborate on that?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by rustypouch

It seems Fox is saying it was a Republican idea, and implying that Romney was for it, before he was against it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...heckered-past/

I wonder if that article is planting more weasel seeds:

Quote:

The Heritage Foundation "substantially revised" its proposal four years later, according to a 1994 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

They are implying the right wing think tank first proposed the idea but later recognized it was a mistake, ergo the right wing is really against the mandate.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Cain

Conservative messaging often impresses me, and their quick, unified response to this is no exception. Everybody just gets on board.

The idea that the mandate is a "tax on the poor and middle-class" is interesting to me.

In fact, all income levels are affected. Rich people seem just as able to opt of insurance, on the grounds they are invincible and, even if they need it, will pay for it themselves.

Look at someone like Dr. Jay Gordon, who is pediatrician to the stars (and was the puppet master behind Jenny McCarthy). He doesn't even ACCEPT insurance in his practice, and it is on an all cash basis. He does it because he refuses to accept the negotiated prices that come with insurance companies. So why do his patients need insurance? What they need is a ton of money. You think Jenny McCarthy's son has health insurance?

But by the ACA, she would need to either get it, or pay the tax.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

See, right there ^ another dishonest talking point.

The poor have the option of government assistance countering any increased cost they can't afford.

The middle class as a whole, is going to be better off financially in several ways. One, those of us paying for deadbeaters' care through markups on our health care costs will see a benefit as the cost is shared by everyone, not just paying customers.

Two, a major cause of bankruptcy will be eliminated.

Three, those in the middle class who are paying costs for chronic health problems that no insurer will cover will now have access to insurance thus lowering their costs.

And four, all of us with kids over 18 but under 26 will pay less with our kids on our policies than if we had to have individual plans for the kids. My son is 22 and in college.

Five: Those in the middle class who want to start their own small business don't have to remain in jobs they hate instead because they can't afford insurance on their own. (This point proves to me that the GOP is only in favor of business when it's big enough to hand them millions of dollars to keep it legal to stack the decks against everybody else.)

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by rustypouch

It seems Fox is saying it was a Republican idea, and implying that Romney was for it, before he was against it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...heckered-past/

Oh my Rupert, what big balls you have.

All the better to teabag you with, my dear.

[marksman]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

It's hard to imagine something else that would be similar enough to this to point to this holding but different enough not to have the tax argument.

All it would require is the government compelling an affirmative act that is something other than purchase. So let's say, the government used the commerce clause to require people to report how much beef they eat on a monthly basis. Let's even say the government provides the forms and postage for free. Let's further say the government can't get the info they need directly from the beef producers and grocers. They need to know how much each individual purchases.

The law states that even people who don't purchase beef must fill out the forms, even if it is only to check off the box that says "I purchased no beef this month." So now it is requiring people who did not engage in commerce to take an affirmative act that costs them nothing. Is the beef-reporting mandate constitutional as an exercise of the Commerce Clause? It cannot be justified as a tax. Seems to me that this Court would say it is not.

[boooeee]

From the front page of foxnews.com

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by marksman

All it would require is the government compelling an affirmative act that is something other than purchase. So let's say, the government used the commerce clause to require people to report how much beef they eat on a monthly basis. Let's even say the government provides the forms and postage for free. Let's further say the government can't get the info they need directly from the beef producers and grocers. They need to know how much each individual purchases.

The law states that even people who don't purchase beef must fill out the forms, even if it is only to check off the box that says "I purchased no beef this month." So now it is requiring people who did not engage in commerce to take an affirmative act that costs them nothing. Is the beef-reporting mandate constitutional as an exercise of the Commerce Clause? It cannot be justified as a tax. Seems to me that this Court would say it is not.

What's the penalty for failure to report? A smart Congress would impose a "tax penalty" for each month in which a report was not submitted, which would seem clearly permissible under today's decision. If there's no penalty at all, it seems a moot point (and possibly no one would even have standing to challenge the act, as there's no harm in non-compliance). I suppose if the government were threatening to imprison people for non-reporting, that might be held to exceed its Commerce Clause authority under today's decision.

[Brown]

While we're talking about spin here, has anybody noticed that all three opinions (by Roberts, Ginsburg and Scalia) talk about broccoli? This point, which I understand was popularized by certain media commentators, was actually discussed at oral argument, to the irritation of at least one justice:

Quote:

JUSTICE BREYER: All right. But all that sounds like you're debating the merits of the bill. You asked really for limiting principles so we don't get into a matter that I think has nothing to do with this case: broccoli. Okay?

Just becuase something is discussed in oral argument doesn't mean it will make it into the final opinions, however. See, for example, Supreme Court on Homeopathy, Psychics and Satan, in which Satan was discussed repeatedly during oral argument, but the Goat-Footed Fellow didn't get mentioned at all in the actual opinions.

But in this case, everybody talked about broccoli. Justice Ginsburg coined a term for it:

Quote:

As an example of the type of regulation he fears, THE CHIEF JUSTICE cites a Government mandate to purchase green vegetables. One could call this concern "the broccoli horrible."

[grunion]

Originally Posted by marksman

All it would require is the government compelling an affirmative act that is something other than purchase. So let's say, the government used the commerce clause to require people to report how much beef they eat on a monthly basis. Let's even say the government provides the forms and postage for free. Let's further say the government can't get the info they need directly from the beef producers and grocers. They need to know how much each individual purchases.

The law states that even people who don't purchase beef must fill out the forms, even if it is only to check off the box that says "I purchased no beef this month." So now it is requiring people who did not engage in commerce to take an affirmative act that costs them nothing. Is the beef-reporting mandate constitutional as an exercise of the Commerce Clause? It cannot be justified as a tax. Seems to me that this Court would say it is not.

How is this theoretical mandate different from the box we must check on our 1040 as to whether we wish $3 to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

Can you elaborate on that?

Sure, will first off, you would agree that an analogy is an analogy because it's not exactly the same as the issue it's intended to speak on, right? Of course that would not invalidate an analogy. Just that given the fact that no analogy is perfect it's reasonable to look to the differences to see the weaknesses of said analogy.

That said, it seems to me that that there is a lack of compelling interest to mandate farmers purchase wheat. That seems to me to be a solutions in search of a problem. But perhaps I'm wrong. To set aside the CC for just a moment. Could you give me a scenario in which you would envision congress levying a tax to ensure that all farmers get wheat sufficient to meet their needs? (forgive my question if you find it presumptuous. I'm not trying to engage in a straw man. Just extending the logic of the tax argument in order to make a point)

To extend the logic a bit further, I could see a comparison with citizens and the market of food. Ostensibly nearly all citizens are involved in the food market. One could ask if it is appropriate for congress to mandate that all people purchase private food insurance. The response to that question could be that the government in effect does that via taxation and SNAP (food stamps). In short, there is a compelling interest to ensure all citizens have health insurance. If that interest could be met through increased taxation by way of the general fund then a mandate is essentially a tax.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by marksman

So let's say, the government used the commerce clause to require people to report how much beef they eat on a monthly basis. Let's even say the government provides the forms and postage for free. Let's further say the government can't get the info they need directly from the beef producers and grocers. They need to know how much each individual purchases.

Perhaps I'm coming from out of left field and I suspect that may well be your perception of my position. What compelling interest is there to do so? I suppose that you are simply using an extreme example to make a point. If so is this a slippery slope argument (not per se fallacious)? If not then the argument, IMO, does not lend itself to supporting strict adherence of the CC. Again, admittedly I'm a novice at best here so have a bit of patience.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by boooeee

From the front page of foxnews.com

Shameless.

ETA: Their headline now shows Obama signing the bill; over the picture they write:
Guess
what's
now a...
'TAX'

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Cain

Shameless.

ETA: Their headline now shows Obama signing the bill; over the picture they write:
Guess
what's
now a...
'TAX'

So Fox News has given up all pretense of "We report, you decide"?

I know they were never that way, but this isn't even trying.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Sure, will first off, you would agree that an analogy is an analogy because it's not the same as the issue it's intended speak on, right? Of course that would not invalidate an analogy. Just that given the fact that no analogy is perfect it's reasonable to look to the differences to see the weaknesses of said analogy.

That said, it seems to me that that there is a lack of compelling interest to mandate farmers purchase wheat. That seems to me to be a solutions in search of a problem. But perhaps I'm wrong. To set aside the CC for just a moment. Could you give me a scenario in which you would envision congress levying a tax to ensure that all farmers get wheat sufficient to meet their needs? (forgive my question if you find it presumptuous. I'm not trying to engage in a straw man. Just extending the logic of the tax argument in order to make a point)

This may take us a bit far afield from the actual case, and of course the analogy may not be perfect, but I'll try. The problem in the case of Wickard v. Filburn was that the price for wheat had plummeted due to a combination of overproduction and underconsumption, causing problems for American farmers. To correct this, Congress enacted wheat production caps aimed at stabilizing the price of wheat by limiting supply. A farmer in Ohio, Filburn, exceeded his production cap but used all of the excess wheat produced on his own farm as feed for livestock rather than selling it in interstate commerce. When he was prosecuted for exceeding the cap, he argued that limiting production of wheat for on-farm use was outside the scope of Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding that the aggregate effects of excess production even for local consumption had an effect on the interstate wheat market by driving down demand for wheat that otherwise would have been purchased on the interstate market. Therefore even local production and consumption of wheat fell within Congress's power to regulate under its Commerce Clause authority.

As I understood Joe's point, he was arguing that there's really no "activity" underlying Congress's authority to regulate in Wickard, because the real problem was not producing excess wheat but rather refraining from purchasing wheat on the interstate market-- i.e., commercial inactivity. And I can sort of see that point; he's right that, had the excess wheat been produced but not consumed, then the excess production would not have been tied to any decreased demand. Seen from that perspective, the act upheld in Wickard was essentially a mandate that wheat used for on-farm consumption must be purchased on the interstate market. Congress could, in theory, have done away with production caps altogether and simply mandated that every farmer must purchase a certain amount of wheat (estimated as roughly the amount that woud be consumed by the farm's commercial activities) on the interstate market, regardless of whether the farmer's needs were met through local production of wheat or not. That would have had the same stabilizing effect as the production quota and would have been a direct mandate to engage in a specific commercial transaction, much like the ACA insurance mandate. I'm not sure if Congress would have upheld such a provision or not-- like Justice Roberts, I tend to think there's a distinction between regulating activity (in the form of production caps) and regulating inactivity (in the form of mandating market participants to engage in commercial transactions that they otherwise would not) that imposes a real limit on Congress's Commerce Clause authority even if an economist would view the two as functionally equivalent. But let's say for the sake of argument that such a mandate would be upheld. Even if that's true, it still seems to me that there's an "activity" here-- it's the activity of engaging in the broader agricultural market that defines "farmers" as a class. Farmers are by definition active participants in the agriculture market in a way that the uninsured (despite arguments about what they may or may not do in the future) are not active participants in the health care market. For the Wickard analogy to work, I think Joe would have to argue that Congress could constitutionally mandate not only farmers, but all Americans to buy some quota of wheat in order to stabilize agriculture prices. And I have a hard time, admittedly on a mostly intuitive level, accepting that that kind of dictate would be within Congress's Commerce Clause power.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

This may take us a bit far afield from the actual case, and of course the analogy may not be perfect, but I'll try. The problem in the case of Wickard v. Filburn was that the price for wheat had plummeted due to a combination of overproduction and underconsumption, causing problems for American farmers. To correct this, Congress enacted wheat production caps aimed at stabilizing the price of wheat by limiting supply. A farmer in Ohio, Filburn, exceeded his production cap but used all of the excess wheat produced on his own farm as feed for livestock rather than selling it in interstate commerce. When he was prosecuted for exceeding the cap, he argued that limiting production of wheat for on-farm use was outside the scope of Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding that the aggregate effects of excess production even for local consumption had an effect on the interstate wheat market by driving down demand for wheat that otherwise would have been purchased on the interstate market. Therefore even local production and consumption of wheat fell within Congress's power to regulate under its Commerce Clause authority.

As I understood Joe's point, he was arguing that there's really no "activity" underlying Congress's authority to regulate in Wickard, because the real problem was not producing excess wheat but rather refraining from purchasing wheat on the interstate market-- i.e., commercial inactivity. And I can sort of see that point; he's right that, had the excess wheat been produced but not consumed, then the excess production would not have been tied to any decreased demand. Seen from that perspective, the act upheld in Wickard was essentially a mandate that wheat used for on-farm consumption must be purchased on the interstate market. Congress could, in theory, have done away with production caps altogether and simply mandated that every farmer must purchase a certain amount of wheat (estimated as roughly the amount that woud be consumed by the farm's commercial activities) on the interstate market, regardless of whether the farmer's needs were met through local production of wheat or not. That would have had the same stabilizing effect as the production quota and would have been a direct mandate to engage in a specific commercial transaction, much like the ACA insurance mandate. I'm not sure if Congress would have upheld such a provision or not-- like Justice Roberts, I tend to think there's a distinction between regulating activity (in the form of production caps) and regulating inactivity (in the form of mandating market participants to engage in commercial transactions that they otherwise would not) that imposes a real limit on Congress's Commerce Clause authority even if an economist would view the two as functionally equivalent. But let's say for the sake of argument that such a mandate would be upheld. Even if that's true, it still seems to me that there's an "activity" here-- it's the activity of engaging in the broader agricultural market that defines "farmers" as a class. Farmers are by definition active participants in the agriculture market in a way that the uninsured (despite arguments about what they may or may not do in the future) are not active participants in the health care market. For the Wickard analogy to work, I think Joe would have to argue that Congress could constitutionally mandate not only farmers, but all Americans to buy some quota of wheat in order to stabilize agriculture prices. And I have a hard time, admittedly on a mostly intuitive level, accepting that that kind of dictate would be within Congress's Commerce Clause power.

Thank you. I understand the issue much better now. I'll need to stew on it a bit in order to respond, if I respond at all that is.

[Brown]

I saw one story on my smartphone that a number of people are so upset with the Supreme Court's upholding "socialized medicine" that they have said they plan to move to Canada.

I first thought the story HAD to be from The Onion. But it may be legitimate.

For those who want to try coming to Canada, I say: Go for it. I did. You might learn something. I did.

Edited to add: Another link showing the outrage.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

They keep saying that this affirms the federal government's right to force us to buy something. But they were already forcing us to buy the federal government itself, so what's new?

~~ Paul

[Brown]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

They keep saying that this affirms the federal government's right to force us to buy something. But they were already forcing us to buy the federal government itself, so what's new?

~~ Paul

You gotta fight for your right to be a free-loader, I guess.

What some folks seem to be overlooking is that governmental power to compel people to contribute (or to buy broccoli) DOES exist, according to Chief Justice Roberts:

Quote:

Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.

(Emphasis mine.)

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Brown

I saw one story on my smartphone that a number of people are so upset with the Supreme Court's upholding "socialized medicine" that they have said they plan to move to Canada.

I first thought the story HAD to be from The Onion. But it may be legitimate.

For those who want to try coming to Canada, I say: Go for it. I did. You might learn something. I did.

Edited to add: Another link showing the outrage.

[Sabretooth]

I've been riding the fence on this thing the whole time...mainly because no one seems to have the answer to this question:

What is this going to cost me?

I make about $35k, and get insurance through work. Is my premium going up, down, nowhere? Am I going to have to pay an increased tax to help cover others health care even more so than now?

What should I expect?

I've heard all kinds of opinions...that this is going to cost middle-class Americans dearly in the long run...that it's going to shove America right back into deep recession...etc. etc.

It's all Greek to me right now. I honestly only like the parts where kids can stay on til 26 and that no one can be denied/dropped because of an illness/condition. But that's kind of where I stop. But I will also admit that I'm naive to most of what Obamacare is.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

They keep saying that this affirms the federal government's right to force us to buy something. But they were already forcing us to buy the federal government itself, so what's new?

~~ Paul

Okay, okay, I get it. But could you just keep your government out of my medicare? It's one of the last vestiges of laissez-fair capitalism left. I paid for it out of each hard earned pay check and it belongs to me.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

In my opinion that was the problem all along. President Obama promised no new taxes for under 250,000 so instead of calling it a tax...

I know. It's like when people get taxed for speeding...

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

I've been riding the fence on this thing the whole time...mainly because no one seems to have the answer to this question:

What is this going to cost me?

I make about $35k, and get insurance through work. Is my premium going up, down, nowhere? Am I going to have to pay an increased tax to help cover others health care even more so than now?

What should I expect?

I've heard all kinds of opinions...that this is going to cost middle-class Americans dearly in the long run...that it's going to shove America right back into deep recession...etc. etc.

It's all Greek to me right now. I honestly only like the parts where kids can stay on til 26 and that no one can be denied/dropped because of an illness/condition. But that's kind of where I stop. But I will also admit that I'm naive to most of what Obamacare is.

If you have insurance, nothing. Though your provider might try to increase prices and blame it on whatever.

If you don't, 1% of your yearly income with a minimum of $95 unless your income taxes are simply too low for even that.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by grunion

Nice capture of the moment...

Funny, but I'm calling "Photoshop"