Another Federal Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional

[senseamp]

Judge covered this aspect:

Judge is completely wrong in his opinion. Uninsured risk of un-reimbursed medical expenses has a non-zero cost to other taxpayers, whether or not the actual un-reimbursed medical expenses materialize for the individual. The uninsured individual is gambling with other people's money when he bets that he is going to stay healthy and not incur any expenses that he won't be able to repay.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Judge is completely wrong in his opinion. Uninsured risk of un-reimbursed medical expenses has a non-zero cost to other taxpayers, whether or not the actual un-reimbursed medical expenses materialize for the individual. The uninsured individual is gambling with other people's money when he bets that he is going to stay healthy and not incur any expenses that he won't be able to repay.

Unfortunately you don't address what the judge said. It's hard to say that someone was wrong about a stock market pick because they were talking about a recipe.

"non-zero" isn't a sufficient justification, or rather it's an absurd one. It's possible to make virtually anything fit that criteria.

 

[werepossum]

The only way it is a path to eternal electoral dominance is if the Democrat reforms are so successful that they become highly popular with the electorate. Sounds like you are pretty optimistic on Obamacare then.

Rather I recognize that Democrats are very close to getting more than half the people on the public dole. Since we no longer have any widespread morality about taking other people's stuff, I can recognize that once 55% or more are on the dole, Democrats can wield the dual swords of promising more benefits and threatening that the Republicans would take away those benefits. The Democrats do not need to be highly popular, they just need to train enough people to the teat and promise to protect it from the Republicans. Either they win from then on, or Republicans become Democrats in different colored shirts promising an even bigger, juicier teat.

If you doubt that, look at the last election. Republicans won a historic victory, biggest seat gain in 60 years. Republicans did not win this victory by being highly popular, they won it in spite of themselves, because Democrats sucked even more. However as more and more people get used to the dole, and get comfortable with their sense of entitlement, this trick gets harder to pull off. Already California, home of Reagan himself, is practically unwinnable by any Republican distinguishable from a Democrat. And as California goes, so goes the country.

 

[senseamp]

Unfortunately you don't address what the judge said. It's hard to say that someone was wrong about a stock market pick because they were talking about a recipe.

"non-zero" isn't a sufficient justification, or rather it's an absurd one. It's possible to make virtually anything fit that criteria.

So what? That doesn't make it unconstitutional.

 

[senseamp]

Rather I recognize that Democrats are very close to getting more than half the people on the public dole. Since we no longer have any widespread morality about taking other people's stuff, I can recognize that once 55% or more are on the dole, Democrats can wield the dual swords of promising more benefits and threatening that the Republicans would take away those benefits. The Democrats do not need to be highly popular, they just need to train enough people to the teat and promise to protect it from the Republicans. Either they win from then on, or Republicans become Democrats in different colored shirts promising an even bigger, juicier teat.

If you doubt that, look at the last election. Republicans won a historic victory, biggest seat gain in 60 years. Republicans did not win this victory by being highly popular, they won it in spite of themselves, because Democrats sucked even more. However as more and more people get used to the dole, and get comfortable with their sense of entitlement, this trick gets harder to pull off. Already California, home of Reagan himself, is practically unwinnable by any Republican distinguishable from a Democrat. And as California goes, so goes the country.

Tough cookies. I don't think the goal of our public policy should be to keep Republicans electable.

 

[hal2kilo]

Conservative:" I hate activist judges"
Citizens United... crickets
Ruling against Health Reform bill.... crickets

 

[Atreus21]

Conservative:" I hate activist judges"
Citizens United... crickets
Ruling against Health Reform bill.... crickets

It's only judicial activism if you're opposed to the ruling.

You guys wouldn't call Roe v. Wade or Griswold v. Connecticut judicial activism. Conservatives probably would.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So what? That doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Suggestion- run for a judges seat.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
If you doubt that, look at the last election. Republicans won a historic victory, biggest seat gain in 60 years. Republicans did not win this victory by being highly popular, they won it in spite of themselves, because Democrats sucked even more. ....

A bit off topic for this thread, but I see variations of this assertion all the time and it's bunk. Democrats took a beating last year for one reason: the economy sucked, the worst in 70+ years. When the economy turns sour, the party in power takes a beating, plain and simple. As GHW Bush said, "It's the economy, stupid."

 

[werepossum]

Tough cookies. I don't think the goal of our public policy should be to keep Republicans electable.

Agreed.

A bit off topic for this thread, but I see variations of this assertion all the time and it's bunk. Democrats took a beating last year for one reason: the economy sucked, the worst in 70+ years. When the economy turns sour, the party in power takes a beating, plain and simple. As GHW Bush said, "It's the economy, stupid."

Again, agreed. But my point - that Republicans won this landslide not because of their popularity but because of the Democrats' unpopularity - is still valid. Americans hated the Democrats because of many factors, but yes, the economy sucking was no doubt the biggest. But whatever degree of Democrat culpability you personally find in our economic mess, the blame attached to them by the American voter is undeniable.

 

[senseamp]

Suggestion- run for a judges seat.

Why? If Republicans want to overturn the individual mandate and declare it unconstitutional, I say let them do it. Healthcare should be an entitlement, not a mandate.

 

[QuantumPion]

Under a single payor system the government would (theoretically) have all of the financial might. Health care providers would take what the Gov't pays or they go out of business. There would be no system of competing insurers allowing a care provider to refuse a plan because it doesn't pay enough.

You misunderstand my comment. The government is a $1.5 trillion in deficit just with social security and medicare, not even counting obamacare. The government has no money to pay for everyone's health care. The only thing they have the power to do is enforce rationing.

 

[QuantumPion]

Judge is completely wrong in his opinion. Uninsured risk of un-reimbursed medical expenses has a non-zero cost to other taxpayers, whether or not the actual un-reimbursed medical expenses materialize for the individual. The uninsured individual is gambling with other people's money when he bets that he is going to stay healthy and not incur any expenses that he won't be able to repay.

You did not understand the Judge's comment then. Let me summarize it:

It's true that some people remain uninsured yet still receieve health care, thus being a drain on the system. However, it is impossible to know which individuals will be a drain beforehand. Therefore, it is wrong to punish everyone in advance.

Here's an analogy - it would be like instead of sentencing a murder to 20 years in prison, we will sentence everyone for 1.7 hours of prison each. Since we know that 1 in 100,000 people are murderers, that's fair, right?

 

[Craig234]

There are two issues here - one is the constitutionality of the 'private mandate', and the other is how the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality.

The predictions I've seen are that it's likely to be a 5-4 vote it's not constitutional, based on the usual 5 against the usual 4.

That has little do with the first issue - its constitutionality - and everything to do with the politics of the current Justices, especially the radical right 4.

That doesn't mean the mandates are constitutional - I didn't say that, I said it's an issue separate from the Justices' politics to discuss.

The mainstream 4 aren't always right. You might agree or disagree with them, if they say it's constitutional. Maybe they will even surprise many and rule against mandates. But their reasons if they do will be a lot more solid than the radical right 4's reasons, who use a radical ideology for their agenda against our legal culture as they try to overturn mainstream constitutional principles over decades (such as the allowing of unlimited corporate donations as a constitutionally protected right).

You can have an opinion on the constitutionality different than the Justices.

If it is overturned, it would be great to see that be the trigger for doing what we should have in the first place - a public option if not 'Medicare for all'.

Sadly, the House being taken over by Republicans all but guarantees a far worse policy.

 

[xj0hnx]

Why? If Republicans want to overturn the individual mandate and declare it unconstitutional, I say let them do it. Healthcare should be an entitlement, not a mandate.

So you think you are entitled to the services of another human being? loliberals.

 

[sactoking]

But their reasons if they do will be a lot more solid than the radical right 4's reasons

Just to pick a nit, but I would not be so bold as to make that statement. The "conservative" 4 need only say 'Absence of activity is not activity' to be on pretty solid legal ground. To the contrary, the "liberal" 4 would have to do more creative reasoning to justify that inactivity = activity.

Really, if you break this down to a mathematical perspective the constitutional argument for a mandate can be expressed in the equation X = Y + Z where X is the population, Y is the portion of the population participating in an activity and Z is the portion of the population not participating in an activity.

The current administration's stance is that "commerce" applies to the term X, so that both Y and Z can be regulated as subsets of X. The opposing view is that "commerce" only applies to Y and that Z is not a subset of Y and thus not subject to regulation.

 

[senseamp]

You did not understand the Judge's comment then. Let me summarize it:

It's true that some people remain uninsured yet still receieve health care, thus being a drain on the system. However, it is impossible to know which individuals will be a drain beforehand. Therefore, it is wrong to punish everyone in advance.

It's not charging everyone the cost of huge medical expenses beforehand. It's requiring them to cover their own risk of such expenses.

Here's an analogy - it would be like instead of sentencing a murder to 20 years in prison, we will sentence everyone for 1.7 hours of prison each. Since we know that 1 in 100,000 people are murderers, that's fair, right?

The sad thing is you actually think this is a valid analogy, so I will explain to you why it's not.
If you murder someone, and are sentenced to 20 years in jail, it can not make anyone else on the hook for serving your time. There is no externality to ensure against. If you incur medical expenses beyond your ability to pay, those become losses for hospitals and doctors, which get rolled into everyone else's medical bills and taxes. The law requires that you not expose everyone to the risk of such burden by buying insurance against it yourself.

 

[senseamp]

So you think you are entitled to the services of another human being? loliberals.

I pay taxes too. That's how I want my taxes spent.

 

[nobodyknows]

Because forcing someone to buy something they can't afford, and taxing them with fines if they don't, makes it more affordable, right?

My state just passed a law requiring everyone to buy a handgun to protect themselves with or face a fine. Constitutional or not?

 

[Bowfinger]

Again, agreed. But my point - that Republicans won this landslide not because of their popularity but because of the Democrats' unpopularity - is still valid. Americans hated the Democrats because of many factors, but yes, the economy sucking was no doubt the biggest. But whatever degree of Democrat culpability you personally find in our economic mess, the blame attached to them by the American voter is undeniable.

Undeniable? Hah! I can deny pretty much anything.

But I'm not. Fair enough. Yes, the Dems lost not because Americans necessarily liked Republicans but because they held Democrats responsible for the poor economy. It's also much of the reason the Dems won in 2008, they were seen as the lesser of two evils. I think that's one of the reasons America is in trouble, that too many Americans feel compelled to stick with the Republocrats and pick between two bad choices.

 

[Bowfinger]

I pay taxes too. That's how I want my taxes spent.

Not only that, but I'm betting he feels "entitled" to military and police protection, passable roads, courts, etc., etc. ... all provided through the "services of another human being." lolnutters. In short, it was a stupid and ill-considered retort.

 

[Craig234]

Just to pick a nit, but I would not be so bold as to make that statement. The "conservative" 4 need only say 'Absence of activity is not activity' to be on pretty solid legal ground. To the contrary, the "liberal" 4 would have to do more creative reasoning to justify that inactivity = activity.

Really, if you break this down to a mathematical perspective the constitutional argument for a mandate can be expressed in the equation X = Y + Z where X is the population, Y is the portion of the population participating in an activity and Z is the portion of the population not participating in an activity.

The current administration's stance is that "commerce" applies to the term X, so that both Y and Z can be regulated as subsets of X. The opposing view is that "commerce" only applies to Y and that Z is not a subset of Y and thus not subject to regulation.

There can be a good argument for a conclusion that agrees with radical rightists, and yet they make a bad argument for the same conclusion.

Let's say you think Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional for one set of reasons - if a radical Justice rules it's unconstitutional because it 'violates the Christian faith this nation is founded on', it doesn't make his argument any less a radical subversion of the separation of Church and State, just because you have a far better argument.

What I'm saying is to keep separate the issues in the constitutionality of this issue, and the politics of the Justices who might rule for radical ideological agendas.

If a mainstream Justice and one of the four radical right-wing Justices both rule this is unconstitutional, the mainstream Justice will likely have better reasons.

It's possible to have the right vote for the wrong reasons.

In your response, you took my statement, the hypothetical that 'if the two both vote no, the mainstream will have better reasons', and you simply changed my assumptions - you put a better argument in the mouth of the right-wing justice as if they'll make it for no apparent reason assuming they will do so as if the fact a better argument exists means they'll use that one and not their radical ideology they've used for years, you switch the mainstream Justice from a no to a yes vote.

You seemed to do what I said not to, mixing up the issue - your your own arguments of what's right - with the politics of the Justices, putting your words in their mouths.

It's easy to do that - which is why I raised the issue how easy it is to mix them up.

 

[xj0hnx]

Not only that, but I'm betting he feels "entitled" to military and police protection, passable roads, courts, etc., etc. ... all provided through the "services of another human being." lolnutters. In short, it was a stupid and ill-considered retort.

You do a lot of assuming, not surprising for a loony leftist, entitlement mentality goon.

 

[Bowfinger]

You do a lot of assuming, not surprising for a loony leftist, entitlement mentality goon.

Go play sweetie. Grown-ups are trying to talk here.

 

[bfdd]

Tough cookies. I don't think the goal of our public policy should be to keep Republicans electable.

Well I don't think the goal of our public policy should be to bankrupt the country. So tough cookies for all the people who can't pay for medical insurance?