By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Opposition to the health care law is conservative judicial activism

I find it interesting that people care about the constitutionality of a law that is so awful ...

The core problem in the health care system in the United States is that health insurance doesn't act like insurance at all. If health insurance operated like car insurance people would be covered for injuries and unexpected illnesses but would have to pay out of pocket for checkups and "maintainence". If they had insurance and were injured or became ill the insurance company that covered them would be obligated to continue paying regardless of whether they continued being a client of that company, and there would be no problem with new companies refusing to pay for pre-existing conditions because the previous company would be obligated to pay. People would buy their insurance on their own and insurance companies would set premiums based on the likelihood of illness or injury.



Around the Network
makingmusic476 said:
I hope if the bill gets repealed, Obama will turn around and fight for single payer healthcare.

Since 33% of people want a single payer system and 49% oppose it, I hope he does this, too. Otherwise, he stands a pretty good chance of winning reelection.



badgenome said:
makingmusic476 said:
I hope if the bill gets repealed, Obama will turn around and fight for single payer healthcare.

Since 33% of people want a single payer system and 49% oppose it, I hope he does this, too. Otherwise, he stands a pretty good chance of winning reelection.


I'd assume he'd come out for it after the election.

Those figures depress me.

HappySqurriel said:
I find it interesting that people care about the constitutionality of a law that is so awful ...

The core problem in the health care system in the United States is that health insurance doesn't act like insurance at all. If health insurance operated like car insurance people would be covered for injuries and unexpected illnesses but would have to pay out of pocket for checkups and "maintainence". If they had insurance and were injured or became ill the insurance company that covered them would be obligated to continue paying regardless of whether they continued being a client of that company, and there would be no problem with new companies refusing to pay for pre-existing conditions because the previous company would be obligated to pay. People would buy their insurance on their own and insurance companies would set premiums based on the likelihood of illness or injury.

I assume something like this would be government enforced?

I suppose that would cover people who are diagnosed with a pre-existing conditions while on their parents plan and one day have to transition to a plan of their own, but what about people who are born with a pre-existing conditions?



Mr Khan said:

Because where in the Constitution is the free market or economic liberty an enumerated power? The commerce clause is clearly there, but in this case there is nothing else in there to oppose the commerce clause. To state that we have a "right" to not be forced to buy anything is therefore false, as far as American jurisprudence should be concerned. The conservative justices will inject ideas of economic libertarianism into American jurisprudence that have no constitutional basis


 I suppose one could argue that the law may in fact be "Constitutional" under our current interpretation of what that actually means.  However, that is more a symptom of a systemic problem in the way we've interpreted the Constitution over the last 100 years or so.  In essence, as far as I can tell, there is almost nothing left that the Federal government can't do. 

It was my understanding, at least initially, that the Constitution was to be a document that clearly lays out exactly what the Federal government can do, (which is very little) and leaves all the rest up to the discretion of the individual states.  It seems to me we've lost our way almost entirely. 

The Constitution isn't something that we're supposed to check as an afterthought after a law's already been drafted and voted on.  It's original purpose was to keep politcians from doing the things that they ought not be doing.  If all the Constitution is nowadays is merely something we look to as an afterthought rather than a clear list of directives, then we've got a serious problem.



 

killerzX said:
badgenome said:

I don't see how limiting the federal government to its enumerated powers is activism. But if it is, it's a form of judicial activism that's A-OK with me.

This:

Because where in the Constitution is the free market or economic liberty an enumerated power?

Makes me wonder if you understand what the term "enumerated power" even means. You're literally asking, "Where does the Consitution empower the federal government to not do things?"

it is activism.... constitutional activism.

something we havent had nearly enough of in the past 100 years.

Agreed.  Original intent all the way!



 

Around the Network
sperrico87 said:
Mr Khan said:

Because where in the Constitution is the free market or economic liberty an enumerated power? The commerce clause is clearly there, but in this case there is nothing else in there to oppose the commerce clause. To state that we have a "right" to not be forced to buy anything is therefore false, as far as American jurisprudence should be concerned. The conservative justices will inject ideas of economic libertarianism into American jurisprudence that have no constitutional basis


 I suppose one could argue that the law may in fact be "Constitutional" under our current interpretation of what that actually means.  However, that is more a symptom of a systemic problem in the way we've interpreted the Constitution over the last 100 years or so.  In essence, as far as I can tell, there is almost nothing left that the Federal government can't do. 

It was my understanding, at least initially, that the Constitution was to be a document that clearly lays out exactly what the Federal government can do, (which is very little) and leaves all the rest up to the discretion of the individual states.  It seems to me we've lost our way almost entirely. 

The Constitution isn't something that we're supposed to check as an afterthought after a law's already been drafted and voted on.  It's original purpose was to keep politcians from doing the things that they ought not be doing.  If all the Constitution is nowadays is merely something we look to as an afterthought rather than a clear list of directives, then we've got a serious problem.

Even when the country was first created, we had politicians advocating for a very loose interpretation of the constitution.  Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists were the driving force behind that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Era

I have no idea where the idea that the founding fathers all supported a strict interpretation of the constitution came from.  Lines were drawn before the constitution was even ratified, with George Washington and Alexander Hamilton supporting a strong federal government and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposing such a strong central authority.  It's where the strict vs loose battle began.



makingmusic476 said:
HappySqurriel said:
I find it interesting that people care about the constitutionality of a law that is so awful ...

The core problem in the health care system in the United States is that health insurance doesn't act like insurance at all. If health insurance operated like car insurance people would be covered for injuries and unexpected illnesses but would have to pay out of pocket for checkups and "maintainence". If they had insurance and were injured or became ill the insurance company that covered them would be obligated to continue paying regardless of whether they continued being a client of that company, and there would be no problem with new companies refusing to pay for pre-existing conditions because the previous company would be obligated to pay. People would buy their insurance on their own and insurance companies would set premiums based on the likelihood of illness or injury.

I assume something like this would be government enforced?

I suppose that would cover people who are diagnosed with a pre-existing conditions while on their parents plan and one day have to transition to a plan of their own, but what about people who are born with a pre-existing conditions?

Unborn children would need to be covered by their parents plans and/or the government ...

Ultimately, the low percentage of people with significant problems would mean that the cost (either way) would be relatively small.



makingmusic476 said:
sperrico87 said:
Mr Khan said:

Because where in the Constitution is the free market or economic liberty an enumerated power? The commerce clause is clearly there, but in this case there is nothing else in there to oppose the commerce clause. To state that we have a "right" to not be forced to buy anything is therefore false, as far as American jurisprudence should be concerned. The conservative justices will inject ideas of economic libertarianism into American jurisprudence that have no constitutional basis


 I suppose one could argue that the law may in fact be "Constitutional" under our current interpretation of what that actually means.  However, that is more a symptom of a systemic problem in the way we've interpreted the Constitution over the last 100 years or so.  In essence, as far as I can tell, there is almost nothing left that the Federal government can't do. 

It was my understanding, at least initially, that the Constitution was to be a document that clearly lays out exactly what the Federal government can do, (which is very little) and leaves all the rest up to the discretion of the individual states.  It seems to me we've lost our way almost entirely. 

The Constitution isn't something that we're supposed to check as an afterthought after a law's already been drafted and voted on.  It's original purpose was to keep politcians from doing the things that they ought not be doing.  If all the Constitution is nowadays is merely something we look to as an afterthought rather than a clear list of directives, then we've got a serious problem.

Even when the country was first created, we had politicians advocating for a very loose interpretation of the constitution.  Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists were the driving force behind that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Era

I have no idea where the idea that the founding fathers all supported a strict interpretation of the constitution came from.  Lines were drawn before the constitution was even ratified, with George Washington and Alexander Hamilton supporting a strong federal government and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposing such a strong central authority.  It's where the strict vs loose battle began.

Exactly. The Constitution was initially created in a bid to create an effective central government for the nation, with the Bill of Rights working to make the new document into one that simultaneously restrained said government to only those powers laid out initially, and thus the role of the constitution has been in debate since antiquity.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Tired of people MILKING the system for FREE health Care, poor people do it, that's fine, rich people do it, wtf.

If Every single person has health care, then it "in theory" cost each person only a few bucks a month, thats the key.

I'm tired of people cheating the system, I'm tired of people having baby, after baby, just to collect more money from the government at the end of the year, only to use the money for themselves.

I'm tired of the FDA and their BS drugs that do more harm then good, with more side effects so you buy more drugs.

I'm tired of BS Drug companies pushing there unsafe drugs to get past with FDA approval by using $$$$

I'm tired of the Drug Commercials so you go to your doctor and say "I want this, I have this problem", and the stupid people that do it.

I'm tired of Doctors/hospitals over charging when they see you have insurance. ($700.00 for 2 Tylenal pills when my Son was born, had the cost removed)

I'm tired of the health care you receive depends on how much you spend

I'm tired of paying for insurance monthly, but then paying a co-pay. Have the drug companies pay for all those advertising brochures that are shoved in my face while waiting to see a doctor.

I'm tired of Patented drugs that cost way to much money, when the patent runs out, they change the formula slightly to form a new patent.

I'm tired of them covering up the cures for many diseases, so they can still sell the drugs.

I'm tired of the FDA turning their back on natural medicine because they don't see a profit in it.

 



PS4 Preordered - 06/11/2013 @09:30am

XBox One Preordered - 06/19/2013 @07:57pm

"I don't trust #XboxOne & #Kinect 2.0, it's always connected" as you tweet from your smartphone - irony 0_o

makingmusic476 said:
badgenome said:
makingmusic476 said:
I hope if the bill gets repealed, Obama will turn around and fight for single payer healthcare.

Since 33% of people want a single payer system and 49% oppose it, I hope he does this, too. Otherwise, he stands a pretty good chance of winning reelection.


I'd assume he'd come out for it after the election.

Those figures depress me.




They make sense really.  Most people get better healthcare then they would single payer system wise.

Most poor people get coverage equal to what a single payer system would with Medicare and Medicaid.


The only people who really tend to get screwed are four groups of people.

1) A very small group of people who have prexisting conditions and are upper poor/middleclass and their costs drive them into being poor. 

2) People who don't have health insurance because they don't want it, because they don't expect to get sick. (very few of these people do get sick or sick enough where they don't benefit, but these very few people get screwed.)

3) Those who qualify for medicare/medicaid but don't aply/use it.  40% of peopel who qualify for free healthcare coverage don't sign up or are kicked off for governments stupid reasons.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/12/dead_giveaway.html

4)  Illegal aliens.  They're counted in the US census as citizens... and legally can't have health insurance.

Come to think if it... how does this law effect illegal aliens exactly.  Will they have to avoid hospitals because they don't have health insurance, and not being able to show health insurance will lead to a fine for which they'll need to provide a REAL SSID number, which they won't be able to leading to them being deported?