Guide to the Healthcare Supreme Court Case

[Kasz216]

noname2200 said:

badgenome said:

noname2200 said:

That said, I can also see the counterarguments. For starters, there is already regulated economic activity when utilizing health care. No one disputes that this area is legitimately susceptible to federal regulation. Add to that how, in the US, some amount of health care is nearly a right; hospitals are forbidden by law to turn away patients regardless of inability to pay.

But the fundamental question remains: can the government force you into economic activity in order to regulate it? And if the government creates a problem with its regulation - your example of forbidding hospitals from refusing patients, for instance - it's a bit worrying that the solution is invariably more government control. It's also downright illogical, although I certainly understand why the government is always going to be for more government control.

On a less talked about note, I also think the law runs afoul of the establishment clause. In an attempt to accomodate people like Christian Scientists who don't believe in seeking medical care on religious grounds, the law grants an exemption to members of any recognized religion. But, of course, the government doesn't have the power to recognize any religion, and in fact is expressly forbidden from doing so? Besides, why should a Christian Scientist be more entitled to such an exemption than just some sincere nut with "real religion" in his heart? Obviously, this part of the law has more severability than the mandate, as if the mandate is removed, the law is basically unfunded and thus falls apart.

For your first paragraph, I think you're mistating the purpose (although not necessarily the effect). The argument here isn't that the government is forcing you into economic activity in order to regulate that economic activity, it's that economic activity is essentially already happening (the distribution of health care costs from the uninsured consumer to the hospital), and that these regulations are merely extending regulation to this hitherto unregulated arena. I would find your arguments more persuasive if this was about a purely optional activity, but because every American who does not live and die as a hermit in the woods will someday need some form of health care (and the longer it is postponed, the more likely it will result in an expensive visit to the ER), it is harder for me to believe that regulations can not extend to this economic activity.

Admittedly, it's not completely clear-cut either, but I find the fact that this is a necessary which has to be paid for by somebody to be persuasive.

As for your second paragraph, I hadn't heard that only "recognized religions" were exempted. I always thought the test was merely sincerity, weighed against how targeted the law was written. If there is a recognized religion clause, I also have to wonder why it hasn't been brought up yet.

Kasz216 said:

The problem with that arguement is two fold.

First is... it's not really written as a tax penalty.  It's written as a fine.  Even the Whitehouse administration has dropped this arguement, it's being argued today simply because the court wants to rule on it.

 

Secondly, again those are penaltys for doing something, withdrawing early/giving money away.  While this would be for NOT doing something.  If anything, your arguement would make it more likely to make it illegal that you can't force hospitals to treat the unisured. (If it were looked at purely consitutionally.

It's not written as a tax penalty because the drafters didn't want to pay the political price of raising taxes. It's a cowardly way to go about it, I agree, but in substance I see it as being about the same as being fined for not filing your income taxes on time (another fine for not doing something). Or am I misunderstanding something? If this law had a few lines rewritten to openly (rather than surreptitiously) state that failure to comply results in a tax penalty, would there be any doubt about the constitutionality?

I am curious, though, to find out why exactly even private hospitals can be forced to treat anyone who comes through their doors. I have no doubt it's been litigated.

Again, i'd say yes, afterall, they aren't regulating something that's already happening in the economy. 

Afterall, if someone stays health for 10 years then gets health insurance. (Which is  more often then not with younger people) they are not doing anything in regards to the system, but forced into it by the law.

It essentially set the precedent that by existing... people are effecting the economy, therefore there the government can regulate anything they do.