SCOTUS Health Care debate

[DaveE 178]

Could signal trouble for the administrations position:

Even before the administration's top lawyer could get three minutes into his defense of the mandate, some justices accused the government of pushing for excessive authority to require Americans to buy anything.

"Are there any limits," asked Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of three conservative justices whose votes are seen as crucial to the fate of the unprecedented insurance mandate.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that the government might require Americans to buy cellphones to be ready for emergencies. And Justice Antonin Scalia asked if the government might require Americans to buy broccoli or automobiles.

"If the government can do this, what else can it ... do?” Scalia asked.

The tough questioning of the administration's lawyer is no sure sign of how the justices will rule when they hand down their decision in the case, Department of Health and Human Services, et al., vs. State of Florida, et al., likely in June.

But Tuesday’s arguments may signal trouble for the mandate, widely seen as a cornerstone of the law's program for achieving universal healthcare coverage for the first time in the nation’s history.

The complete article here: LA Ttimes

[Obama 2012 1,714]

But Tuesday’s arguments may signal trouble for the mandate, widely seen as a cornerstone of the law's program for achieving universal healthcare coverage completely shredding the constitution and liberty for the first time in the nation’s history.

Fixed the article.

[DaveE 178]

Alito made me laugh yesterday: "Today you're arguing that the penalty is not a tax," said Alito. “Tomorrow you’re going to be back, and you’re going to be arguing that the penalty is a tax".

[mawilson 2,133]

It does seem unconstitutional. It would be ok to use tax dollars to pay for it, but requiring that all Americans buy something is crossing the line.

[^_^ 5,021]

It does seem unconstitutional. It would be ok to use tax dollars to pay for it, but requiring that all Americans buy something is crossing the line.

Based on my reading of the wsj liveblog, it sounds like obamacare opponents are not objecting to a mandate at the point of service.. they are merely objecting to a mandate before an individual actually becomes a consumer of healthcare.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that the government might require Americans to buy cellphones to be ready for emergencies. And Justice Antonin Scalia asked if the government might require Americans to buy broccoli or automobiles.

"If the government can do this, what else can it ... do?” Scalia asked.

Can I go in and buy a cellphone, a car, or even broccoli without slapping down cash or some form of credit? Uh no I can't. But I can become injured and receive treatment without cash or a form of credit...

[luckytxn 2,264]

Can I go in and buy a cellphone, a car, or even broccoli without slapping down cash or some form of credit? Uh no I can't. But I can become injured and receive treatment without cash or a form of credit...

So from that you say it is OK for the Feds to force consumers to buy a product?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So from that you say it is OK for the Feds to force consumers to buy a product?

Is it any more right than forcing private enterprise to treat people without the money to pay?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Can I go in and buy a cellphone, a car, or even broccoli without slapping down cash or some form of credit? Uh no I can't. But I can become injured and receive treatment without cash or a form of credit...

There again the government isn't telling cell phone companies that they HAVE TO sell you a cell phone. They have a choice. Hospitals do not.

Alito made me laugh yesterday: "Today you're arguing that the penalty is not a tax," said Alito. “Tomorrow you’re going to be back, and you’re going to be arguing that the penalty is a tax".

The moment that the administration argues/calls it a tax, is the moment that Obama loses the 2012 election. It's why they didn't have the health care bill take effect until AFTER the 2012 election as well.

Everything here is thought out very nicely to be honest. They just can't argue the mandate the way they want it to without opponents slamming them for taxing the living hell out of the middle class.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

In some respects, it might have been helpful to have a curb clause.

IE. You may avoid the penalty if you sign an exclusion which allows all hospitals to throw your body in the curb.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Sousuke

[luckytxn 2,264]

Is it any more right than forcing private enterprise to treat people without the money to pay?

Then the state should reimburse for it. The Feds telling citizens they have to buy products is different.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Then the state should reimburse for it. The Feds telling citizens they have to buy products is different.

Sounds like welfare to me. By the way, I don't see any difference. Corporations are people too you know

Edited March 27, 2012 by Sousuke

[luckytxn 2,264]

In some respects, it might have been helpful to have a curb clause.

IE. You may avoid the penalty if you sign an exclusion which allows all hospitals to throw your body in the curb.

Before we get too far remember there is a huge difference between states and Feds.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Sounds like welfare to me. By the way, I don't see any difference. Corporations are people too you know

There is a huge difference. Giving the Feds the power to force citizens to buy products opens up a lot of potential abuse.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

There is a huge difference. Giving the Feds the power to force citizens to buy products opens up a lot of potential abuse.

But they already force citizens to sell products without payment. Seems worse.