Health care reform wins its first legal battle

[Tilted (Premo)]

In the case referred to here, a federal court in Michigan has found the so-called individual mandate to be a Constitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power. Here is Judge Steeh's opinion. This obviously will not be the last word on the matter, but it's noteworthy nonetheless. I'll be interested to read his reasoning.

[bcp (Premo)]

who would have guessed that an Arab judge would side with our Muslim president.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

In the case referred to here, a federal court in Michigan has found the so-called individual mandate to be a Constitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power. Here is Judge Steeh's opinion. This obviously will not be the last word on the matter, but it's noteworthy nonetheless. I'll be interested to read his reasoning.

And what's your opinion on this Tilted?



















2 paragraphs or less please

[bcp (Premo)]

I doubt that the government can force you to purchase a product from a private for profit business, however I do wonder if our acceptance of medicare, and social security have opened the door for the government to tell us that we do have to purchase insurance. either theirs, or someone elses.
If you think about it, other than the fact that it will break the country and cost twice as much as we currently pay for our health care, what is the real difference between obama care and medicare?

besides, Im willing to bet that even if you do purchase private insurance, you will still at some point end up being charged to cover the costs of the ill run government plan.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

I doubt that the government can force you to purchase a product from a private for profit business, however I do wonder if our acceptance of medicare, and social security have opened the door for the government to tell us that we do have to purchase insurance. either theirs, or someone elses.
If you think about it, other than the fact that it will break the country and cost twice as much as we currently pay for our health care, what is the real difference between obama care and medicare?

besides, Im willing to bet that even if you do purchase private insurance, you will still at some point end up being charged to cover the costs of the ill run government plan.

Medicare only covers a certain part of our population (over age 65), who are typically uninsurable unless they can afford to pay huge premiums.

[TurboK9]

Originally Posted by bcp

I doubt that the government can force you to purchase a product from a private for profit business, however I do wonder if our acceptance of medicare, and social security have opened the door for the government to tell us that we do have to purchase insurance. either theirs, or someone elses.
If you think about it, other than the fact that it will break the country and cost twice as much as we currently pay for our health care, what is the real difference between obama care and medicare?

besides, Im willing to bet that even if you do purchase private insurance, you will still at some point end up being charged to cover the costs of the ill run government plan.

They have forced you to buy insurance for decades. On your car. Most states mandate personal injury as well, even if you have health coverage, which is a wee redundant.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by TurboK9

They have forced you to buy insurance for decades. On your car. Most states mandate personal injury as well, even if you have health coverage, which is a wee redundant.

The only difference is, no one is forcing you to buy a car.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Medicare only covers a certain part of our population (over age 65), who are typically uninsurable unless they can afford to pay huge premiums.

But we are all required to pay in. no option

Originally Posted by TurboK9

They have forced you to buy insurance for decades. On your car. Most states mandate personal injury as well, even if you have health coverage, which is a wee redundant.

A requirement to owning the car is that I insure it. I would agree with your anology if the government also forced me to purchase a car. But they dont.
they simply say, if you drive, you must purchase insurance or put X number of dollars in a fund to cover any possible loss/expense. (you did know that option was available right?)

[Tilted (Premo)]

A few initial thoughts:

(1) One small positive note - the court did find that the suit wasn't barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.

(2) The ruling relies only on the Commerce Clause as the basis for Congress's authority to impose the individual mandate. Having found the needed authority there, the court explicitly declined to address whether the Tax and Spend Clause also provides such authority. It also doesn't rely on the Necessary and Proper Clause by name, though part of its reasoning seems to me to be relying on it and just confounding it and the Commerce Clause.

(3) The important issue here was whether not buying insurance is 'economic activity' for purposes of Commerce Clause consideration. Opponents of the individual mandate of course argue that not doing something is not activity, but rather inactivity. The government argues to the contrary, that it is economic activity because it has the potential to affect the marketplace. You can't control whether you are going to need health care in the future, and not having insurance means that if you aren't able to pay for it out of pocket when you do need it, one way or another, the cost of it will get dumped on the rest of society.

In his opinion, the judge argues that not having insurance, rather than being inactivity, is actually "an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars... onto other market participants." In other words, it's not a decision not to buy something, it's a decision not to buy it at a particular time and in a particular way. (On a side note, it strikes me that the judge is confounding health care insurance and health care here, as well as the regulation of those two markets - but I won't get lost for now in arguing why that matters legally. In reality, it probably doesn't.)

In addition, and importantly I think, the judge goes on to say that "[w]hile plaintiffs describe the Commerce Clause power as reaching economic activity, the government’s characterization of the Commerce Clause reaching economic decisions is more accurate." So, not only does regulation of economic activity fall within the purview of the Commerce Clause, but so does regulation of economic decisions not to engage in economic activity for now. The court relies, in part, on Heart of Atlanta Motel v U.S. (1964) to support this proposition, which strikes me as a bit of a stretch in this context (fundamentally, Heart of Atlanta only involved regulating decisions that were made pursuant to a decision to be involved in economic activity in the first place).

(4) As might have been expected, the reasoning relies heavily on Wickard v Filburn (1942) and Gonzalez v Raich (2005).

(5) One more passage:

The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings, who do not oppose medical services on religious grounds, they cannot opt out of this market. As inseparable and integral members of the health care services market, plaintiffs have made a choice regarding the method of payment for the services they expect to receive. The government makes the apropos analogy of paying by credit card rather than by check. How participants in the health care services market pay for such services has a documented impact on interstate commerce. Obviously, this market reality forms the rational basis for Congressional action designed to reduce the number of uninsureds.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

But we are all required to pay in. no option

That is a fact. What's the alternative for our seniors?