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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23553)	3/31/2012 11:36:44 AM
From: gg cox	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

The individual mandate says that a citizen must buy health insurance for himself, or be fined. Should a citizen be allowed to ride on the backs of others for the health care that he might need, at any moment? The precedent has been set rightly or wrongly depending on your point of view.... A citizen must file his income tax return or be fined. Should a citizen be allowed to choose not to pay his income tax without consequence and be allowed to ride for free on the backs of others who do? This is commerce,effects commerce, yours mine and the governments. Why does a citizen who turns 65,Lane3, and wants to stay on a private health insurance plan, not be allowed to do so? This is commerce,effects commerce, yours mine and the governments. Taxes and medicare have been mandated by the government,period. The question becomes if the government can mandate the paying of taxes,effecting everyones commerce and mandate medicare on it's citizens after age 65,effecting everyones commerce...why is the "individual mandate" before the supreme court? It should not be. The answer is the dishonest..(Reagan bamboozled) Republican party...period. Nice to know that one of the" just" knows about the commerce of broccoli.lol

To: Lane3 who wrote (23553)	3/31/2012 1:28:56 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

I referenced Obamacare, the Act, not one of its parts, the mandate. PPACA seriously regulates health care and health "insurance," formerly the regulatory purview of the states. With the mandate, the law is clearly anti-federalist (as well as anti-liberty, and unconstitutional). The federalist argument against it primarily concerns the mandate, without the part you have a different situation. Without the mandate the act is mostly constitutional. Insurance is commerce. Some of it is interstate. Regulating insurance that's entirely within a state is constitutionally dubious (according to the words of the constitution, not according to USSC precedent which would strongly support it as acceptable) and arguably not compatible with federalism, but allowing interstate sale of insurance, and regulating it, is compatible with a textualist or originalist view of the constitution, and with federalism. Even without the mandate the PPACA has dubious points, but federal regulation of insurance as a category isn't so dubious in terms of federalism. Regulating torts and court actions is different. Its not regulating commerce directly, but its regulating government intrusion against commerce. The federalist argument against it is that these are state laws and state courts, properly a subject of the states. The counter argument that's compatible with federalism, is that state intrusions against interstate commerce are properly the subject of federal legislation or court action. The reason why this is a grey are is that state tort actions can reasonably be seen as serious obstructions to interstate commerce, but at the same time they can also be seen as a state legitimately trying to cope with the problems caused by tortuous action.