US Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Health Care Law

[sardia]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/healt ... f=business
Who's ready to hear arguments by the Justice Department? I for one dislike their line of reasoning on what Congress can force people to do. I would have preferred if they had argued that they were taxing everyone who didn't have insurance. Instead, they are going with the commerce clause argument, which leads to awkward line of thought. The idea that health is a commercial product does not resonate as well as taxing behavior/status. (either you're insured or not)(healthy/not healthy.)

[BattleMoose]

Do you just expect everyone to assume that this Health Care Law relates to the USA? There are many other countries in this world, which have laws too! :-/

[Steroid]

Do you just expect everyone to assume that this Health Care Law relates to the USA? There are many other countries in this world, which have laws too! :-/

Perhaps it was linking to an article in the New York Times that carried the implication. Or that the high court is (according to Wikipedia) called the Supreme Court in the US, Bangladesh, Israel, and Uganda, and counted on the Bangladeshis, Israelis, and Ugandans to not raise a fuss. Or that the place that actually had a health care law that was waiting to be heard by the Supreme Court was the US, and the poster counted on people to have some semblance of knowledge about what's going on in the world before they get to the News and Articles subforum of a Webcomic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/health/policy/health-care-is-changing-despite-federal-uncertainty.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=business
Who's ready to hear arguments by the Justice Department? I for one dislike their line of reasoning on what Congress can force people to do. I would have preferred if they had argued that they were taxing everyone who didn't have insurance. Instead, they are going with the commerce clause argument, which leads to awkward line of thought. The idea that health is a commercial product does not resonate as well as taxing behavior/status. (either you're insured or not)(healthy/not healthy.)

Taxation is legal. It's the defenders of the law who want it called a tax. The challenge is that the federal government is unprecedentedly mandating every person purchase a service from a private company, and if they can do that because failing to do so affects interstate commerce, then there are no practical limits on federal power over the citizen. Such limits were intended by the Constitution, therefore the mandate is illegal, modus tollens, QED. It's not making health a commercial product, just insurance. In fact, the law is saying that health is an unfair benefit. If you were immune to all diseases and were unbreakable like in the Shyamalan movie, you should still have to pretend that you're not and insure your own medical care.

[yurell]

Perhaps it was linking to an article in the New York Times that carried the implication. Or that the high court is (according to Wikipedia) called the Supreme Court in the US, Bangladesh, Israel, and Uganda, and counted on the Bangladeshis, Israelis, and Ugandans to not raise a fuss.

That link wasn't in the title, so no one knows what country is being referred to until they actually click the thread. Furthermore, other countries that the ones you listed have Supreme Courts too, such as Australia. The 'Supreme Court' in this case refers to the highest court in each state. So, whether you choose to believe it or not, the title doesn't explain what country it's in for us non-US centric folk.

[Zamfir]

I have asked sardia to make the original post a bit clearer. That doesn't need more discussion.

[Heisenberg]

Taxation is legal.

Taxation is legal on an extremely limited basis. Federal income tax was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court initially, which is why the Constitution had to be amended to allow it. Certain taxes are prohibited, such as a head tax, or a tax on every American simply for being alive. One could potentially compare this law to a head tax with a tax break for insured peoples.

I don't feel like making that argument, but my point is that even if it's a tax, that tax is not necessarily Constitutional.

[omgryebread]

Taxation is legal. It's the defenders of the law who want it called a tax. The challenge is that the federal government is unprecedentedly mandating every person purchase a service from a private company, and if they can do that because failing to do so affects interstate commerce, then there are no practical limits on federal power over the citizen. Such limits were intended by the Constitution, therefore the mandate is illegal, modus tollens, QED. It's not making health a commercial product, just insurance. In fact, the law is saying that health is an unfair benefit. If you were immune to all diseases and were unbreakable like in the Shyamalan movie, you should still have to pretend that you're not and insure your own medical care.

Oh man, we should totally legislate things based on wildly hypothetical super-people. I mean, if I had magical super powers that let me punch people in the face and cure them of cancer, I wouldn't be allowed to do that! That's stupid, so punching people in the face should be legal!!!!!

This is seriously the most hilarious argument for or against pretty much any law.

[yurell]

If you were immune to all diseases and were unbreakable like in the Shyamalan movie, you should still have to pretend that you're not and insure your own medical care.

You know, if I were immune to all diseases and completely unbreakable, I would be happy to pay anyway just for the good of those who aren't (I'd be rich enough through utilising those powers properly anyway). That said, your argument would be a lot more compelling if magic were real. There's a big difference between setting an extreme hypothetical situation and an impossible hypothetical situation. The former can be used to examine the breaking point of a system, the latter is utterly useless.

[Adam H]

There are people that do not need health insurance. If you think that is false, then we have very different definitions of "need".

[omgryebread]

There are people that do not need health insurance. If you think that is false, then we have very different definitions of "need".

There are people who may not need health insurance. However, it is impossible to tell those people from others beforehand. I suppose if we could predict who gets what ailment, we could solve the healthcare problem, but until this thread, I was unaware Congress Is Magic.

Meanwhile, without low risk people in the insurance pool, insurance companies won't accept people who need insurance the most, and I'm paying 15 dollars a day for medication, and 150 a week for therapy I literally require to function in society.

[Chen]

Meanwhile, without low risk people in the insurance pool, insurance companies won't accept people who need insurance the most, and I'm paying 15 dollars a day for medication, and 150 a week for therapy I literally require to function in society.

This is a good reason for socialized healthcare. Its not a great reason to force people to buy private insurance. But of course, that would be too socialist for the US so they go about this convoluted and possibly unconstitutional way of trying to get the same result and most likely still failing to do so.

[omgryebread]

Meanwhile, without low risk people in the insurance pool, insurance companies won't accept people who need insurance the most, and I'm paying 15 dollars a day for medication, and 150 a week for therapy I literally require to function in society.

This is a good reason for socialized healthcare. Its not a great reason to force people to buy private insurance. But of course, that would be too socialist for the US so they go about this convoluted and possibly unconstitutional way of trying to get the same result and most likely still failing to do so.

I agree that socialized medicine is better.

Individual mandate isn't unconstitutional though. I mean, sure you could call it that, but you'd be disagreeing with judicial precedent since John Marshall.

[Ixtellor]

There are people that do not need health insurance. If you think that is false, then we have very different definitions of "need".

I disagree, everyone does need health insurance. Otherwise you become a burden to society when you get sick, hurt, maimed and we have to pay for your care.

I didn't have health insurance in my 20's and it all worked out fine because I was never severed in half by a freak accident. If I had been, and was saved by a superb medical staff, I would have unable to pay me bills... ever... and the tax payers would have done it for me.

In other words: Being 100% healthy and immune diseases doesn't mean you don't need health insurance. I suppose if we didn't have the hippocratic oath and were not a moral society, it wouldn't be an issue. We could just let you die in the Hospital parking lot, but we are a moral society and we will attempt to save you. But everyone else gets to pay for your irresponsible behavior... so we have to make cuts to police, education, roads, and protecting the environment to save your lazy ass.

[Qaanol]

But everyone else gets to pay for your irresponsible behavior... so we have to make cuts to police, education, roads, and protecting the environment to save your lazy ass.

This is a false dichotomy. See this video.

[Chen]

Meanwhile, without low risk people in the insurance pool, insurance companies won't accept people who need insurance the most, and I'm paying 15 dollars a day for medication, and 150 a week for therapy I literally require to function in society.

This is a good reason for socialized healthcare. Its not a great reason to force people to buy private insurance. But of course, that would be too socialist for the US so they go about this convoluted and possibly unconstitutional way of trying to get the same result and most likely still failing to do so.

I agree that socialized medicine is better.

Individual mandate isn't unconstitutional though. I mean, sure you could call it that, but you'd be disagreeing with judicial precedent since John Marshall.

I didn't say for sure it was unconstitutional. I said "possibly" unconstitutional. I mean, isn't that the reason its going to the Supreme Court?

[Malice]

Can somebody explain to me why requiring auto insurance is constitutional but requiring health insurance isn't?

In other news, betting against the Supreme Court not expanding the commerce clause to cover all possible government actions ever is not going to work out for you. The case is a non-starter, but I'm glad they're hearing it because it might help shut the anti-Obamacare people up.

[Роберт]

Can somebody explain to me why requiring auto insurance is constitutional but requiring health insurance isn't?

You're not required to have auto-insurance unless you want to drive a car on government regulated roads (and there are ways to get out of it in that case, anyway).

There's no similar "you're not required to have health insurance unless you're alive" thing going on.

[Silknor]

Can somebody explain to me why requiring auto insurance is constitutional but requiring health insurance isn't?

I don't believe that requiring health insurance (actually charging a fine to those who don't have it) is unconstitutional, but one reason why they're different cases (Роберт pointed out another) is that states, not the federal government, require auto insurance. The states have far broader powers than the federal government in most areas, especially in the minds of many already inclined to object to the federal health care reform law. Thus you don't see the same level of opposition to the individual mandate in Massachusetts on a constitutional basis.

[Ixtellor]

But everyone else gets to pay for your irresponsible behavior... so we have to make cuts to police, education, roads, and protecting the environment to save your lazy ass.

This is a false dichotomy. See this video.

1) Its clear you don't understand your own video.
2) Your video is simplistic and better reserved for middleschooleducation.com.
3) Direct quote from your video "Why do we spend money on fighter planes we don't need".
<----- Thats called an opinion and has no place in the world of facts. (I happen to agree our military is too big, but I also recognize its an opinion)

4) In summary, your video Fails to make your point. I said (paraphrasing) Every dollar we spend curing people without health insurance is a dollar we can't spend on something else.

The video says the EXACT same thing, it just argues that we SHOULD spend more on healthcare and less on other things.

5) Class dismissed.

Can somebody explain to me why requiring auto insurance is constitutional but requiring health insurance isn't?

Because you aren't forced to buy a car. No car = no insurance, hence there is a way to avoid the requirement if you object to it. Where the healthcare requirement can not be avoided unless your... not living, so then its moot.

[Qaanol]

I said (paraphrasing) Every dollar we spend curing people without health insurance is a dollar we can't spend on something else.

The video says the EXACT same thing, it just argues that we SHOULD spend more on healthcare and less on other things.

You did not say “a dollar we can’t spend on something else”, you said “we have to make cuts to police, education, roads, and protecting the environment”. When you paraphrased yourself, you changed the meaning.

What you actually said the first time, and what I was responding to, was an assertion that the specific things that necessarily get cut in order to fund health care, are “police, education, roads, and protecting the environment”.

The video makes precisely the point I intended: there are other things that we could change in the budget, besides the four things you listed.

Your original statement was of the form “if a dollar is spent on X then that dollar was taken away from Y”, where X is “healthcare” and Y is “police, education, roads, and protecting the environment.

That is a false dichotomy, exactly as I stated, for exactly the reasons the video makes clear. We can spend a dollar on X without taking money away from Y, because there are other things, Z, that we could take money away from instead.

The video explains that some of the things included in Z are bloated military budgets, subsidies to big oil and big agriculture, tax breaks for the super-rich, and pork barrel projects.

I completely agree with your paraphrased remark, “Every dollar we spend curing people without health insurance is a dollar we can't spend on something else.” It speaks to the larger truth that “We have a limited supply of resources, which we represent as money, so it is important for us to prioritize what we do with the resources we have in order to get the best results.” That is what the linked video conveys as well.

[sardia]

Let's try to argue this on the level on the courts, and not fanciful super men or videos. =\

Taxation is legal.

Taxation is legal on an extremely limited basis. Federal income tax was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court initially, which is why the Constitution had to be amended to allow it. Certain taxes are prohibited, such as a head tax, or a tax on every American simply for being alive. One could potentially compare this law to a head tax with a tax break for insured peoples.

I don't feel like making that argument, but my point is that even if it's a tax, that tax is not necessarily Constitutional.

You don't think the US has the power to tax health insurance? On a related note, do you remember why the US can't have a head tax?

Steroid, do you think the current deductions and tax credits in the tax code are ok? They grant incentives towards certain behaviors like buying homes or education, etc etc. Do you disagree with that? Or is it simply how costly the behavior is? (in that health insurance costs a lot, which makes it somehow special)

[Internetmeme]

This law is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does the government have the power to force citizens to buy into private services.
I can choose to not drive, therefore I can choose not to buy auto insurance.
I can't choose not to live (for sake of argument, let's disregard suicide as a means of escaping a tax), therefore I cannot choose to not buy health insurance.

I'm not arguing that everyone buying health insurance would be a bad thing for society. It would be a good thing.
The problem is that the government is overstepping itself here. If they amend the constitution like they did with income tax, then all is well, and the republicans can't whine about it any more.

[Qaanol]

This law is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does the government have the power to force citizens to buy into private services.

Very much this.

There is, however, a part of the constitution that does give congress the power to provide healthcare to all Americans. Namely article I, section 8, paragraph 1, “The Congress shall have Power To … provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”.

Since keeping people healthy is wholly a subset of “provide for the general welfare”, congress definitely has the power to do that. I hope SCOTUS strikes down the individual mandate, so the 2013 congress can enact a comprehensive universal healthcare plan the right way.

[Silknor]

I hope SCOTUS strikes down the individual mandate, so the 2013 congress can enact a comprehensive universal healthcare plan the right way.

You're joking right? If SCOTUS strikes it down it'll only set the cause of universal health care even further back. Regardless of constitutional reasoning, it'll hand a major political victory to Republicans, and they're not likely to turn around and endorse and more progressive option now that the individual mandate is dead.

That doesn't anything to do with if SCOTUS should do so, but I certainly don't see it as a win-win situation. A ruling striking down the individual mandate will be bad enough, both politically for those who support more comprehensive healthcare plans and as a policy matter, but the possibility the court will find the mandate can't be severed, thus striking down the whole law, will be far worse. There's a lot of good reforms in there, and it took a near perfect storm of Democratic control to pass them. If they get struck down because they happened to be in the same law as the individual mandate, I don't see much chance anything like them will be coming back anytime soon.

[Griffin]

I honestly want to see it struck down. I've read chunks of it, and... I don't think it holds up. The whole thing is bullshit, to be honest, and it never should have got passed to begin with in the state it was in. Its basically a tax on the working class - the rich don't have to worry about it, because they would have insurance anyways. The poor, at least those good at paperwork, get enough government assistance to get it for free, and the working class gets screwed, again, making social mobility that much harder.

If they wanted to do it in a way that is both consitutional, legal, and right, they would have provided base insurance to everyone and provided tax credits to those who got a better service. Instead, the working class bears the brunt of the laws ill effects, all to insure the corps can continue to turn a profit while the wealthy have to contribute nothing. How unsurprising.

[Silknor]

f they wanted to do it in a way that is both consitutional, legal, and right, they would have provided base insurance to everyone and provided tax credits to those who got a better service.

Instead, they choose to expand Medicaid and provide subsidies to help individuals buy health insurance (and to help employers provide it). The subsidies cover people up to 400% of the federal poverty line, about $89k for a family of four. And this, as opposed to a public option, actually could pass Congress.

[sardia]

I honestly want to see it struck down. I've read chunks of it, and... I don't think it holds up. The whole thing is bullshit, to be honest, and it never should have got passed to begin with in the state it was in. Its basically a tax on the working class - the rich don't have to worry about it, because they would have insurance anyways. The poor, at least those good at paperwork, get enough government assistance to get it for free, and the working class gets screwed, again, making social mobility that much harder.

If they wanted to do it in a way that is both consitutional, legal, and right, they would have provided base insurance to everyone and provided tax credits to those who got a better service. Instead, the working class bears the brunt of the laws ill effects, all to insure the corps can continue to turn a profit while the wealthy have to contribute nothing. How unsurprising.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/magaz ... tax&st=cse
This guy argues that the middle class is where the money is, which is intriguing since it doesn't square with how much the top .1% own of the country's wealth. He argues that "When you add up all the money made by all the people who earn more than $1 million a year, it amounts to around $700 billion. But since the millionaires already pay close to $200 billion in taxes "
and that "To solve our debt problems, we have to go to where the money is — the middle class. People who earn between $30,000 and $200,000 a year make a total of around $5 trillion and pay less than 10 percent of that in taxes (owing mostly to tax incentives and the fact that most families make less than $68,000, where larger tax rates begin). Increasing the middle-class tax burden an additional 8 percent, however, would actually have a bigger impact than taxing millionaires at 100 percent. "

Essentially, the argument is one of the reasons we squeeze the middle class is that's where the money is. Controversial, but I do agree with his statement that tax rates should go up for everyone, while simultaneously removing incentives/deductions/loopholes.

It would have been interesting if they had made it "universal" health care and paid for it by taxing everyone.

[buddy431]

This law is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does the government have the power to force citizens to buy into private services.

I like how boldly many people express this sentiment (or the opposite). The truth is, different judges, people who, you know, actually studied law and are paid to decide whether laws are constitutional are not, have come to different conclusions on whether it's constitutional or not. It is the Supreme court that will ultimately decide whether it is constitutional or not. You may disagree with what the Supreme Court decides (I certainly have in a number of cases), but they are who decide whether a law is constitutional, not some random people on the internet.

Anyways, I thought these were some interesting (made up) odds of different events occuring. Odds of Kennedy being in the majority: 1-9. Odds of Thomas asking a question during oral arguments: 1000-1. Unfortunately, unlike the Presidential Election, I can't find anyone who will actually take my money to bet on the outcome.

Of course, there are more than two outcomes possible. The court is deciding 4 things:
A. Does the Tax Anti-Injunction Act prevent suits from being filed until the law is in effect? One (of four) of the appeals courts that considered the law has taken this stance.
B. Is the individual mandate constitutional? Two (of four) appeals courts have decided it is, one has decided it isn't.
C. If the individual mandate is struck down, can the rest of the law stand? The one appeals court that struck down the mandate said that the rest of the law could stand.
D. Is attaching federal aid to state expansion of Medicaid constitutional? The most relevent precedent here is South Dakota v. Dole.

The court is allotting a nearly unheard of 5 and a half hours of oral arguments (I bet Thomas is saying "kill me now").

If I was a betting man, I would wager that the court will decide that:
A. The Tax Anti-Injunction Act does not prevent the suit from being considered.
B. The Individual mandate is constitutional (in a 5-4 decision)
C. (moot)
D. Attaching federal aid to Medicaid is constitutional (perhaps with a larger majority).

But what do I know. I'm just some guy on the internet.

[sardia]

That's a nice breakdown, but you didn't provide reasoning as to why the court would break one way or another. I'm assuming you are basing it off the fact that 4 of our justices are conservative and liberal, while Anthony Kennedy is the tiebreaker.

[Save Point]

Can somebody explain to me why requiring auto insurance is constitutional but requiring health insurance isn't?

States have police powers to regulate for the health, safety, morals and welfare of their citizens. There is no enumerated federal police power. At best, one may possibly be inferred from the Commerce Clause. I have to run, so here is my short version of my opinion on the Commerce Clause issue in this case: I think, under current CC jurisprudence, the court would be more likely than not to find the Affordable Care Act constitutional. However, the problem with this line of CC cases is that there are a lot of people out there to find these particular rationales to already extend beyond the reasonable boundaries of the Commerce Clause. This case represents a lot of that friction ultimately coming to a head in the form of the federal government making individuals purchase a product, an idea with which plenty of people - jurists wearing fancy hats included - are decidedly uncomfortable. I do not think it would be out of line to suggest that justices who have more narrow interpretations of the CC to take the opportunity to reign in Congress' ability to legislate basically anything and everything under it (slight exaggeration...slight.) We jokingly referred to it as Godmode in my Constitutional Law class.

[mike-l]

Can somebody explain to me why requiring auto insurance is constitutional but requiring health insurance isn't?

One thing that hasn't been pointed out is that the insurance you have to take out for auto insurance is liability. You don't have to take out collission. (Assuming the same as Canada). Ie if you choose to operate a 2 ton chunk of metal at 60 mph, you have to be able to pay other people if you harm them.

[Vaniver]

Unfortunately, unlike the Presidential Election, I can't find anyone who will actually take my money to bet on the outcome.

Intrade has the coarser bets of individual mandate declared unconstitutional before Dec 31 2012 and Dec 31 2013.

Intrade seems to agree with you, with a roughly one out of three chance that they will declare the law unconstitutional.

As for my personal opinions, the Commerce Clause has been misapplied long enough; hopefully this is where the tide turns.

[omgryebread]

Scalia and Thomas at dinner hosted by the lawyers arguing against the health care law.I'm not that torn up about it, because I think Scalia and Thomas do hold sincere ideological beliefs that would have them vote to repeal the law anyway.

A lot of the arguments going on, both politically and here, are pretty ridiculous. Constitutionality is not people's problem with the law, since there are well-acknowledged workarounds. (Raise taxes by the average cost of an insurance plan, implement a tax deduction for having insurance) that are unquestionably constitutional, and opposed by the same people. Constitutionality is just their most expedient argument against this version.

My guess, it will be ruled unconstitutional, because 2 of the justices decided to ignore anything after John Marshall, 2 vote however they want, and 1 seems to flip a coin. Either the individual mandate will be repealed alone, and the administration will be forced to drop the pre-existing condition coverage, and I'll be fucked when I turn 26 and Dad's union doesn't have to cover me, unless I find a job with generous coverage. Or the whole thing will be repealed and I'll be fucked now.

[Prefanity]

Scalia and Thomas at dinner hosted by the lawyers arguing against the health care law.I'm not that torn up about it, because I think Scalia and Thomas do hold sincere ideological beliefs that would have them vote to repeal the law anyway.

A lot of the arguments going on, both politically and here, are pretty ridiculous. Constitutionality is not people's problem with the law, since there are well-acknowledged workarounds. (Raise taxes by the average cost of an insurance plan, implement a tax deduction for having insurance) that are unquestionably constitutional, and opposed by the same people. Constitutionality is just their most expedient argument against this version.

My guess, it will be ruled unconstitutional, because 2 of the justices decided to ignore anything after John Marshall, 2 vote however they want, and 1 seems to flip a coin. Either the individual mandate will be repealed alone, and the administration will be forced to drop the pre-existing condition coverage, and I'll be fucked when I turn 26 and Dad's union doesn't have to cover me, unless I find a job with generous coverage. Or the whole thing will be repealed and I'll be fucked now.

Third option: The whole enchilada will be repealed and the court will overstep the case and set a new precedent for further abuse at the hands of insurance companies.

[Chen]

A lot of the arguments going on, both politically and here, are pretty ridiculous. Constitutionality is not people's problem with the law, since there are well-acknowledged workarounds. (Raise taxes by the average cost of an insurance plan, implement a tax deduction for having insurance) that are unquestionably constitutional, and opposed by the same people. Constitutionality is just their most expedient argument against this version.

Thing is, the well-acknowledged workarounds would have worked from the start, so why didn't they use them? Because saying you're going to increase taxes gets everyone to hate you. They did it in this manner because this is what they could push through congress. Its effectively the same, but people didn't hear the "new tax" part so some people found it ok. It reminds me of that Simpson's episode where Lisa is president and implements a "Temporary Refund Adjustment" instead of a new tax.