Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (100434)	2/23/2011 3:32:12 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 224722

Another Fed Judge Upholds Health Reform "As to the argument, put forward by the plaintiffs, that the mandate is unconstitutional because it purports to regulate “inactivity,” she dismisses that argument as “semantics.” this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality. In response to the plaintiffs’ claim that they would prefer to pay for their own medical care, Kessler says that they “have no way of predicting what their future medical costs will be” and concludes it likely their future medical care will likely impose costs on others. To make her point—and, perhaps, to curry favor with policy wonks like me—she even cites statistics from the Department of Health and Human Services showing that the average hospital stay in the U.S. “lasted 4.6 days and included total charges of $29,046.” But the most important part of her decision may be her specific response to the slippery slope argument that legal critics of the mandate, including Judges Henry Hudson an Roger Vinson, have made. This is what has become known as the “broccoli argument”: If the government can make you pay for health care, the critics say, then why can’t it make you buy broccoli? Or a GM car? Or anything else? This second aspect of the health care market distinguishes the ACA from Plaintiffs’ hypothetical scenario in which Congress enacts a law requiring individuals to purchase automobiles in an attempt to regulate the transportation market. Even assuming that all individuals require transportation in the same sense that all individuals require medical services, automobile manufacturers are not required by law to give cars to people who show up at their door in need of transportation but without the money to pay for it. Similarly, food and lodging are basic necessities, but the Court is not aware of any law requiring restaurants or hotels to provide either free of charge. It should be emphasized that this distinction is not merely a useful limiting principle on Congress’s Commerce Clause power. Rather, it is a basic, relevant fact about the operation of the health care market which is critical to understanding the ACA’s efforts to reform the health care system. The requirement placed upon medical providers by federal law to care for the sick and injured without recompense is part of the cost-shifting problem that Congress sought to redress by enacting the ACA. When a supplier is obligated by law to produce goods or services for free, there is bound to be a substantial effect on market prices if consumers’ behavior results in that obligation’s frequent invocation." tnr.com