Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Will SCOTUS find the private health insurance mandate unconstitutional?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 08:46 PM
Original message
Poll question: Will SCOTUS find the private health insurance mandate unconstitutional?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'll vote if SCOTUS even agrees to hear the case. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoCubsGo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. Of course they will.
Anything to help their corporate buddies get even richer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Puregonzo1188 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. I kind of agree. I could see them avoiding this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
22. How would finding the mandate Constitutional help insurance companies?
The mandate being Constitutional was the carrot. The insurance companies love the idea of 300 million forced consumers.
Striking that down would remove the only component of the bill they like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
grilled onions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. How Constitutional Is It To Have To Pay Someone Else's Bill?
Every time you go to a doctor or hospital part of your bill pays for those who can't(understandable) or those who just don't want to(not quite as understandable). It's a similar problem with car insurance when those insured have to pay part for those who refuse to buy their own. This seems to be more of a state law but I don't recall anyone saying it was unconstitutional yet it is never fair to be in an accident and having to pay to fix your vehicle and not getting the other guy to pay his share even when it is his fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obxhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. So it is fair to expect me to pay for someones health care
by forcing me to buy into insurance I don't need.

That's sound reasoning you have there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. You don't have to own a car. The car meme is utterly busted.
1) You don't have to own a car.
2) You don't have to have insurance on a car if it never leaves your private property.

Now you may say I **NEED** a car but the reality is you don't. It might be horribly inconvenient but there are other options.

This is the govt forcing you to purchase private goods from a private party or face a fine/penalty. It isn't even close to the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. That doesn't mean it isn't allowed.
If the federal government has the power to regulate pre-existing conditions (which it does), it certainly has the power to enact something that is required for those regulations to work (the mandate) through the "necessary and proper" clause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. Hardly. Look up strict scrutiny.
Just because the govt can do something to protect the public good doesn't mean it is allowed to.

There are multiple methods to regulate pre-existing conditions. The mandate is the most intrusive and complex.

The govt could simply prohibit pricing based on conditions (like all employer based coverage which is where 90%+ of Americans get coverage).
The govt could adopt a single payer system.
The govt could adopt a system where those without private insurance (or who opt out of private insurance) are enrolled into a public option plan (paid for by payroll tax deductions).

The govt has an interest in preserving the health of the nation however one couldn't argue that forced workout camps are an acceptable method to "reform" unhealthy citizens. When the govt reaches first for the most burdensome option when other viable options it brings up Constitutional Scrutiny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. No kidding! And I shouldn't have to pay your SS or Medicare!
Get a job, make some decent investments!

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. How constifuckingtutional is it to "pay someone else's" taxes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. That is not a
Constitutional issue. The mandate to force people to buy health insurance is. The distinction is pretty obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. really hard to know
Does this court really want to rewrite the commerce law? Well some on it for sure, but in what direction?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. I got an idea.
I think it could be constitutional IF there was a government subsidy to pay for it, with some sort of means test.

Just my not so humble legal opinion. J.D. here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
12. I have the feeling that Kagan is not as progressive as we've hoped
I see the mandate going down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Oh, I would be shocked if Kagan touched it. She wouldn't even say in her hearings that it would be
unconstitutional for the federal government to force you to buy 3 servings of vegetables a day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
15. 5-4. The right wing SC already knows how they will vote. They have their orders from republican
headquarters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
16. Will that be good or bad? If HCR goes down, what will that mean?
Once again a great example of some privledged mofos telling the rest of us what to think.

What's at stake:

Positive change number one: Fewer uninsured Americans should lead to a lower-cost health care system
Positive change number two: No more caps on coverage
Positive change number three: Insurance companies can no longer refuse coverage based on preexisting medical conditions.

Positive change number four: Keeping kids on their parent’s policy longer
Positive change number five: More employers will be offering coverage.-Tax credits or doing so.
Positive change number six: Free preventative health care.
Positive change number seven: A better appeals process
Positive change number eight: Help for seniors.
Postive Change number nine: Fees on tanning salons. Lowers skin cancer rate cumulatively.

Now I realize that these changes are difficult to understand, and are ahuge threat to the status quo that makes so many DUers happy and complacent.
But in the whole, I would think these changes were a good thing and a great start.
I get the sense the anti-mandate folks are the same ones who won't wear a motorcycle helmet.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. I wear a motorcycle helmet and
I couldn't be more anti-mandate. We waited forever for a good health care bill and instead got this piece of shit. It kind of looks like you are telling the rest of us what to think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. Striking down the mandate doesn't strike down the entire bill. n/t
Edited on Tue Dec-14-10 08:54 AM by Statistical
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
18. screwn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
23. If they found eminent domain constitutional for a private use
with indirect public benefit, they may well find a law ordering private citizens to purchase for-profit health insurance to be constitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
24. 5-4 they will find whatever Republicans say it should be..
There is no doubt in any thinking person's mind that they are anything other than partisan hacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
25. Hopefully it will,
Otherwise what product will we be forced to purchase next under pain of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC