What happens if ObamaCare is overturned?

[Mr Khan]

Kasz216 said:

Mr Khan said:

Kasz216 said:

Dude, we've been over this before... and as I remember... it went from you argueing that I was using a slippery slope arguement to using a slippery slope arguement as to why it wouldn't be abused.  After you never responded to Badgenome i'd just had figured you realized you were wrong and had no arguement against it.

There is no gurantee people will use healthcare services, therefore it is unconsitutional  to mandate insurance.

It's that simple.

Unlike car insurance, where car insurance is specifically tied to driving a car which is a priveledge.

Unless your arguement is... people have to pay money for the right to live.

To say this ruling is constituional is to say there is no right to life... or really, anything.

As i said, it's a clear matter of interstate importance, the health-care industry, and in order to regulate it (at least as the system exists. I'm only expending this much energy defending this half-assed measure because of what i said before, that this is the best we're likely to get for now) they *need* to make it mandatory. There is no other market where forcing people to buy more is the only way to drive prices down in the aggregate, so there's no slippery slope here, except perhaps in expanded insurance-purchasing mandates, but nothing so ludicrous as those Enemies Of The People up on the bench suggested, about being forced to buy this or that consumer good. It's a simple matter of something that needs to be done in order to facilitate an essential part of commerce.

Except thats not an arguement for why they can do it.

That's an arguement for why they SHOULD have the power to do that.

Except, they don't have that power.'

 

Additionally, even if that was an arguement.  That arguement is false.

The government could decide to pass a law that created a government healthcare plan that covered everybody.... paid for by the government.

It'd have the same effect.

Goverment doesn't want to do it.  They however could.

And unlike the ACA, that would be constituional. (and would work better...)

 

Or do you think that single payer health insurance wouldn't be cheaper, or do you think it's not constitutional?

I'm all for single-payer, so long as it works out some of the inefficiencies that such a system is prone to (though i would rather have inefficient single payer than what we have now, as my argument with Samuel indicated), but as I said, it's unlikely to happen. We need real reform now, and not in 50 years which will be the next time anyone gets bold enough to try this again, and given its necessity, the constitution should flex to incorporate it so long as it is indeed not a gross violation, which then is where the argument circles back around. The mandate is necessary in order to regulate a matter of interstate concern, though not by any means the best means to regulate it, in the choice that sits before the Court, we have a choice between granting congress necessary powers to enact legislative goals that are enumerated by the constitution (e.g. the regulation of interstate commerce), or denying them those powers for reasons that are not couched in the constitution at all.

The precedent here lies with the mandate.