Health Care Reform Ruled Unconstitutional... Again

[Mr Bean]

Ok then we can revert to the next question Nitram. If you can make me by heath care because it might cost you money then what else can you make me do because it costs you money if I don't? After all you could reduce that 1017$ figure if you prevent me from smoking or buying fatty foods, both of which increase my chances for becoming an uninsured statistic.

Further what about being under-insured? Do I have to shell out money for the premium plan since the basic "good for leprosy and gunshot wounds" plans that you can buy with less than 100$ a month leaves me unable to pay my full hospital bill if I get cancer instead?

[Bakustra]

That doesn't change the actual reasoning behind the mandate, which is why I feel that Judge Vinson's ruling is more consistent than the other, which only struck down the mandate clause. The basic argument is that without people being made to buy in, then they would simply wait until they got sick to do so, essentially forcing insurance companies to raise premiums to deal with that issue. So without the mandate then the law has no benefit at all.

[Mr Bean]

That doesn't change the actual reasoning behind the mandate, which is why I feel that Judge Vinson's ruling is more consistent than the other, which only struck down the mandate clause. The basic argument is that without people being made to buy in, then they would simply wait until they got sick to do so, essentially forcing insurance companies to raise premiums to deal with that issue. So without the mandate then the law has no benefit at all.

This also confuses me. Do they think I'm going to get hit by a bus and call the insurance company from the ambulance for insurance? I can see it making sense if you think you might have cancer or some other long term alignment. But in this new world will I be able to set up doctors appointments then get insurance while he's making me turn and cough?

Would not bills assigned before the insurance kicks in still be your own responsibility? Could not insurance companies assign waiting periods or lists to hope you die before your insurance becomes active?

[Bakustra]

That doesn't change the actual reasoning behind the mandate, which is why I feel that Judge Vinson's ruling is more consistent than the other, which only struck down the mandate clause. The basic argument is that without people being made to buy in, then they would simply wait until they got sick to do so, essentially forcing insurance companies to raise premiums to deal with that issue. So without the mandate then the law has no benefit at all.

This also confuses me. Do they think I'm going to get hit by a bus and call the insurance company from the ambulance for insurance? I can see it making sense if you think you might have cancer or some other long term alignment. But in this new world will I be able to set up doctors appointments then get insurance while he's making me turn and cough?

Would not bills assigned before the insurance kicks in still be your own responsibility? Could not insurance companies assign waiting periods or lists to hope you die before your insurance becomes active?

That doesn't address the problem of people that require long-term care, though. Even if you have to wait until after the initial surgeries to sign on, all your bed rest has to be paid for- and that wrecks the foundation of the insurance system, which relies on people paying in over time to receive the benefits. Still, it's a good reason for public healthcare.

I'm also pretty sure that waiting periods and lists are banned by the new law or would get legislation targeted at them if they implemented them on a full scale (at the very least, you could argue they're banned under the proviso that they cannot deny care, but I think there may be more specific clauses).

[SirNitram]

Ok then we can revert to the next question Nitram. If you can make me by heath care because it might cost you money then what else can you make me do because it costs you money if I don't? After all you could reduce that 1017$ figure if you prevent me from smoking or buying fatty foods, both of which increase my chances for becoming an uninsured statistic.

Slippery Slope Fallacy. Moving on..

Further what about being under-insured? Do I have to shell out money for the premium plan since the basic "good for leprosy and gunshot wounds" plans that you can buy with less than 100$ a month leaves me unable to pay my full hospital bill if I get cancer instead?

Actually, removing the possibility of under-insurance is one of the parts of the ACA I've never seen any coherent(IE, not 'IZ ZOCIALISM!') argument against. A mandatory minimum for health care plans is incorporated. Are you attempting to argue this is an unreasonable requirement of the insurance companies?

[Master of Ossus]

Slippery Slope Fallacy. Moving on..

That's not a slippery slope fallacy. He's not arguing that ruling the individual mandate constitutional would invariably lead to the sort of program that he's describing. He's asking you to draw a constitutional limit on the authority that you would endow to Congress. What test do you think that courts should apply in these circumstances when evaluating the constitutionality of a law that Congress claims falls within its power to regulate interstate commerce? I have asked you this question repeatedly, and you have ducked it studiously each time (probably because the people in the Obama Administration that you've mindlessly and inaccurately parroted endlessly haven't articulated any such boundary even though the Constitution obviously imposes it somewhere).

That doesn't change the actual reasoning behind the mandate, which is why I feel that Judge Vinson's ruling is more consistent than the other, which only struck down the mandate clause. The basic argument is that without people being made to buy in, then they would simply wait until they got sick to do so, essentially forcing insurance companies to raise premiums to deal with that issue. So without the mandate then the law has no benefit at all.

This also confuses me. Do they think I'm going to get hit by a bus and call the insurance company from the ambulance for insurance? I can see it making sense if you think you might have cancer or some other long term alignment. But in this new world will I be able to set up doctors appointments then get insurance while he's making me turn and cough?

Would not bills assigned before the insurance kicks in still be your own responsibility? Could not insurance companies assign waiting periods or lists to hope you die before your insurance becomes active?

Bills that were actually assigned before the insurance kicks in wouldn't be covered by the insurance policy, but bills that hadn't accrued yet (as, in your example, with a person with cancer or another long-term ailment) would be the responsibility of the insurance provider, and people could not be turned away if they were already sick. So it's entirely possible for someone to have cancer, run out and buy an insurance policy, and have treatments paid for by the insurance. This is the market for lemons issue I was talking about, and this is the problem that the defendants in the Florida case acknowledged: without the individual mandate, none of the insurance provisions make any sense.

In fairness, there likely are some aspects of the Bill that could logically stand on their own (it makes research grants to various causes, and such), but surely the whole scheme of reforming the country's health care system depend upon the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision.

[SirNitram]

Slippery Slope Fallacy. Moving on..

That's not a slippery slope fallacy. He's not arguing that ruling the individual mandate constitutional would invariably lead to the sort of program that he's describing. He's asking you to draw a constitutional limit on the authority that you would endow to Congress. What test do you think that courts should apply in these circumstances when evaluating the constitutionality of a law that Congress claims falls within its power to regulate interstate commerce? I have asked you this question repeatedly, and you have ducked it studiously each time (probably because the people in the Obama Administration that you've mindlessly and inaccurately parroted endlessly haven't articulated any such boundary even though the Constitution obviously imposes it somewhere).

And of course, you have to pretend I'm parroting mindlessly. A clear and logical limit, given modern precedence on the Commerce Clause, means that things which shift costs from one group to another would clearly be within the power. The Mandate is a tool to ensure this shifting from the reckless to the sensible is lessened, if not eliminated. I do beleive this is a legitimate way to use it to reduce activity which has a net cost on the populace as a whole. I see no logical reason why this isn't an entirely reasonable standard.

[Master of Ossus]

And of course, you have to pretend I'm parroting mindlessly. A clear and logical limit, given modern precedence on the Commerce Clause, means that things which shift costs from one group to another would clearly be within the power.

What precedent do you base this on? What case refers to anything relating to externalities, and how can you argue that this is consistent with the Constitution permitting Congress only to regulate interstate commerce? Bear in mind that insurers have historically operated almost entirely within state borders, offering insurance only to residents of their state.

What of US v. Lopez, in which the Supreme Court specifically looked to whether an activity was "economic or non-economic?" Would you argue that the decision not to purchase health insurance is "economic activity?" It hardly seems to be describable as an "act."

Finally, how would you get address the majority's argument in Lopez that the Commerce Clause does not extend to Congress a national police power? Virtually all crimes can be characterized as methods of shifting costs from one party to another, and to allow such a broad exercise of authority seems to me to lie well outside of the bounds of the Commerce Clause established by Lopez for that reason. Note that this is more than dicta: it was specifically held in rulings like US v. Morrison--an instance in which there was a clear shifting of costs (of sexual assault) from one party to another, but the law was nonetheless held to be an impermissible extension of the Commerce Clause?

The Mandate is a tool to ensure this shifting from the reckless to the sensible is lessened, if not eliminated. I do beleive this is a legitimate way to use it to reduce activity which has a net cost on the populace as a whole. I see no logical reason why this isn't an entirely reasonable standard.

I'm not arguing that the HCR law is bad policy, necessarily, I'm simply stating that its constitutionality seems pretty questionable. It's hard for me to conceive of a relationship between the individual mandate and interstate commerce that would not similarly implicate a substantial fraction of criminal activity, aggregated across a large portion of the population.

[SirNitram]

And of course, you have to pretend I'm parroting mindlessly. A clear and logical limit, given modern precedence on the Commerce Clause, means that things which shift costs from one group to another would clearly be within the power.

What precedent do you base this on? What case refers to anything relating to externalities, and how can you argue that this is consistent with the Constitution permitting Congress only to regulate interstate commerce? Bear in mind that insurers have historically operated almost entirely within state borders, offering insurance only to residents of their state.

Also, how would you reconcile this limitation with rulings like US v. Morrison--an instance in which there was a clear shifting of costs (of sexual assault) from one party to another, but the law was nonetheless held to be an impermissible extension of the Commerce Clause?

What of US v. Lopez, in which the Supreme Court specifically looked to whether an activity was "economic or non-economic?" Would you argue that the decision not to purchase health insurance is "economic activity?" It hardly seems to be describable as an "act."

Personal note: I've always viewed those cases as the other way around, actually. That Lopez laid it out and Morrison clarified. (And the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy abandoned the very arguments of it for a marijuana ruling, but whatever.)

In Lopez's majority, the key precedent I'm referring to is from the Majority, citing that things which 'substantially impact' or 'substantially relate' to interstate commerce. However, I reconcile re: the economic v. non-economic in that both cases were noticably not economic; neither abuse nor carrying a weapon is economic, while decisions on how one will pay for ones health is inherently economic.

Re: It being an act. As I said, it is a decision. Further, this decision causes a change in economic activity of others.

Finally, how would you get address the majority's argument in Lopez that the Commerce Clause does not extend to Congress a national police power? Virtually all crimes can be characterized as methods of shifting costs from one party to another, and to allow such a broad exercise of authority seems to me to lie well outside of the bounds of the Commerce Clause established by Lopez for that reason.

This strikes me as semantics. Health insurance and the decisions around it are purely economic, not criminal.

The Mandate is a tool to ensure this shifting from the reckless to the sensible is lessened, if not eliminated. I do beleive this is a legitimate way to use it to reduce activity which has a net cost on the populace as a whole. I see no logical reason why this isn't an entirely reasonable standard.

I'm not arguing that the HCR law is bad policy, necessarily, I'm simply stating that its constitutionality seems pretty questionable. It's hard for me to conceive of a relationship between the individual mandate and interstate commerce that would not similarly implicate a substantial fraction of criminal activity, aggregated across a large portion of the population.

What you or I can conceive is rarely relevent. As I said, health insurance isn't criminal, it's explicitly economic.

[Master of Ossus]

In Lopez's majority, the key precedent I'm referring to is from the Majority, citing that things which 'substantially impact' or 'substantially relate' to interstate commerce. However, I reconcile re: the economic v. non-economic in that both cases were noticably not economic; neither abuse nor carrying a weapon is economic, while decisions on how one will pay for ones health is inherently economic.

Re: It being an act. As I said, it is a decision. Further, this decision causes a change in economic activity of others.

So I'm still not seeing much of a nexus between the individual mandate and interstate commerce. Even assuming arguendo that we adopt your argument as to the "act" of not purchasing health insurance constituting a form of commerce, how is it related to interstate commerce beyond being "economic?" (Or do you contend that all economic activity falls within the purview of Federal regulation?)

This strikes me as semantics. Health insurance and the decisions around it are purely economic, not criminal.

So what of things like education? Labor laws? Requirements to purchase or not to purchase car insurance? All of these things have historically fallen under the exclusive or near-exclusive jurisdiction of states, but all revolve around economic questions.

What you or I can conceive is rarely relevent. As I said, health insurance isn't criminal, it's explicitly economic.

So you would permit all economic activity to be regulated by the Federal government? What economic activities would you agree do not have a substantial impact on interstate commerce, taken in aggregate, and (again) how is this distinct from a police power if Congress is able to impose criminal sanctions on (in)activity?

[SirNitram]

In Lopez's majority, the key precedent I'm referring to is from the Majority, citing that things which 'substantially impact' or 'substantially relate' to interstate commerce. However, I reconcile re: the economic v. non-economic in that both cases were noticably not economic; neither abuse nor carrying a weapon is economic, while decisions on how one will pay for ones health is inherently economic.

Re: It being an act. As I said, it is a decision. Further, this decision causes a change in economic activity of others.

So I'm still not seeing much of a nexus between the individual mandate and interstate commerce. Even assuming arguendo that we adopt your argument as to the "act" of not purchasing health insurance constituting a form of commerce, how is it related to interstate commerce beyond being "economic?" (Or do you contend that all economic activity falls within the purview of Federal regulation?)

Gonzales v. Raich, where the Court held that Congress may regulate a non-economic good, which is intrastate, if it does so as part of a complete scheme of legislation designed to regulate Interstate Commerce.

This strikes me as semantics. Health insurance and the decisions around it are purely economic, not criminal.

So what of things like education? Labor laws? Requirements to purchase or not to purchase car insurance? All of these things have historically fallen under the exclusive or near-exclusive jurisdiction of states, but all revolve around economic questions.

I do beleive these things would be within the Congress' scope of powers, via the Raich standard.

What you or I can conceive is rarely relevent. As I said, health insurance isn't criminal, it's explicitly economic.

So you would permit all economic activity to be regulated by the Federal government? What economic activities would you agree do not have a substantial impact on interstate commerce, taken in aggregate, and (again) how is this distinct from a police power if Congress is able to impose criminal sanctions on (in)activity?

Yes, I beleive the Congress COULD regulate all economic activity that can be proven to have an impact on a national scale, via research. Research shows the impact is national, on all those insured.

There are no criminal penaties. An additional tax is not a criminal sanction, unless you considering having a rich parent criminal(The Estate Tax).