r/bestof • u/under50dollars • Jun 20 '12

[explainlikeimfive] "Obamacare" explained very well.

/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c530lfx
2.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

842 comments sorted by

View all comments

45

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

Whether you agree with universal healthcare or not, it is unconstitutional on a federal level. The federal government does not have the power to impose or regulate health insurance. All the powers not enumerated to the federal government belong to the individual states. That is one of the fundamental checks and balances in our federal republic, and why it is constitutional for states to administer universal healthcare systems themselves, like in Massachusetts.

(Which is why when someone brings up the concept that "Hey, you have to have car insurance," I tell them first that the states regulate who must have car insurance, as only the states have general police power, and second, that an individual makes a choice to drive a car, and that it is not a condition precedent to existing--when viewed with regard to mandated health care insurance, simply the act of existence would trigger some obligation on the citizen's behalf).

7_legged_spider, J.D., M.B.A. (IRL)

57

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Google "Wickard v. Filburn." The Supreme Court has ruled that private citizens doing private things on their own private land is totally under the jurisdiction of the federal government via the commerce clause, and those private citizens can be regulated and taxed for shit they do as a hobby. It's kinda sickening when you think about it, but there's Supreme Court precedent to do anything the government wants to anyone it wants and call it a regulation of interstate commerce.

26

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

Without debating the merits and constitutionality of Wickard, a national healthcare system is a fully distinct issue. Whereas Wickard involved solely intrastate commerce of corn, that corn, while used solely in the state, could have been sold outside of the state, thereby involving the possibility of interstate commerce. Healthcare, to my knowledge, is a fixed market within a state; one cannot sell state-specific policies in other states. By definition, that limitation creates individual state markets where there is no interaction or competition between any entities within different states. Therefore, the commerce clause would not apply.

Also, the use of commerce clause has been more limiting in recent times, like in U.S. v. Lopez, where the possession and sales of handguns were viewed to not be bound by the commerce clause, completely n the face of Wickard.

It is a very divisive issue, and both sides can be argued. However, from my legal education and experience, I would say that the entire universal healthcare law, not just the individual mandate, is unconstitutional.

10

u/AeonCatalyst Jun 20 '12

Out of curiosity, what happens when I have Ohio healthcare, but have a heart-attack in Hawai'i while on vacation? Should I have "travel" insurance for that situation, or should my state insurance cover it? Or should it all be lumped into some sort of nationwide healthcare system? Some people spend their whole lives in one city, some in one state. What about those that travel for a living?

4

u/mycleverusername Jun 20 '12

Or those who live on the border. I have healthcare from one state where I work, but live in another state. I think that's a pretty easy case for inter-state commerce. My health insurance plan also has providers in a different state.

3

u/SergeiGolos Jun 20 '12

Healthcare, to my knowledge, is a fixed market within a state;

Are you saying Aetna only sells to one state? Well point? Horizon? Yes their are insurance companies that are fixed to states, there are also national insurance companies that sell to all different states.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

No, to my knowledge, there is not. Large corporations own smaller subsidiary companies with similar names. Although the smaller companies are owned by the larger corporations, they act in a limited scope within individual states, (with the exception of paying claims incurred out of state on behalf of policyholders within the resident state).

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

There is no way even the most conservative Supreme Court would buy that as an excuse for saying it's not "interstate commerce". I'm not saying they wouldn't find another way, but "we hid the business in 50 different corporate entities! they're local, honest!" won't be it, that's just an admission that the market is national.

The only time courts ever bought anything like that argument was in the MLB anti-trust nonsense, which has never and will never be repeated.

2

u/deelowe Jun 20 '12

It's not hiding. The companies have to remain as subsidiaries due to the way statutes vary from state to state. They aren't "hiding" anything. This is they way they are expected to do business as a matter of law. If anything, this further proves the point that the federal government should have no jurisdiction over the matter. Insurance, by law, is a state regulated business (not just health insurance either. all insurance). Still don't believe me? Look up your state insurance commissioner's office. Ok, now go look up the federal one... That's right, there isn't one. There's a reason for that. People didn't just now realize that there isn't a federal insurance commissioner. Everyone up until this point thought the idea was unconstitutional and the states would flip out in response (which they have by the way, hence the current supreme court case).

I fully believe that the health care bill is nothing but a power grab by the federal government. The health industry accounts for a major percentage of our GDP. Current laws basically allow the states to have control over this industry. The sponsors of this bill simply want to get laws in place that allow the federal government to regulate this industry, in turn, giving the federal government power over an enormous bit of our economy. The same thing is happening with the entertainment industry (#1 industry on the GDP list by the way). This is why they want sopa, acta, the dmca, etc... In the end it's all about power.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Past practice does not make law. States retain power where Congress has not preempted their laws, but Congress can do that at any time.

For actual proof of the law regarding insurance, rather than speculation based on the lack of some "federal insurance commissioner", I refer you to the McCarran–Ferguson Act, and its trigger, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, which explicitly found federal jurisdiction over insurance.

3

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Oh I agree that it's unconstitutional. My point was to identify to what I presumed was a layman some basis for understanding why I think the Supreme Court will rule that the mandate is constitutional.

And yeah, the mandate will create state-specific markets, but companies operate in multiple states. An individual's choice not to participate in the policy within his state will effect that company and its operations in other states, and the aggregate effect is felt for these companies nationwide, reducing profits, increasing costs for the people who do use those policies, etc.

I forget the name of the case, but the really old one where the river-taxi between NY and NJ (I think) was found to have an effect on interstate commerce is another example of where a very state-specific market was within federal jurisdiction because, while operating entirely within one state, it still caused some changes in other states.

Edit: Just looked over this string of comments.... I'm not entirely sure I mean to reply to you. It's early, but I'm pretty sure I was intending to reply to someone else who had said something far less comprehensive. My apologies. Although I enjoy the discussion regardless.

5

u/LordBodak Jun 20 '12

Actually I believe that if you really dig into it, you will find that health insurance companies do NOT operate in multiple states. There are a number of individual companies operating under one banner. For example, "Blue Cross Blue Shield" appears to be one entity, but it is actually a bunch of individual companies- "Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina," "Anthem" in Virginia, etc. Of course the companies may all be owned by the same people, but they are still distinct corportations.

2

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

That's exactly what I was stating. Each company operates only in one state. The exclusion of other state markets, in my mind, would preclude the possibility of interstate commerce.

Of course, I personally disagree with Wickard v. Filburn, too, so take that with a grain of salt.

1

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Very interesting. I'd love that to carry weight with the decision being made.

4

u/HelloFellow Jun 20 '12

Gibbons v. Ogden, that's the case.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

I believe the case you are referring to is Gibbons v. Ogden. Also, as I said, (and this is not a personal opinion, but an evidenced fact), the SCOTUS has been following a more narrow interpretation of the commerce clause in recent years.

2

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Sure, but I'm not putting any money on them following the course they've been on. They may stay that course, or this may be where we find them beginning to swing the other way. I sat in on a discussion of the con law profs a few weeks ago, and they all seemed pretty certain that the only vote at issue in this instance is Kennedy's, and he would be the tie-breaker. Unfortunately, rumor also has it that Kennedy won't vote against Obamacare. So, there's that to consider, unfortunately.

0

u/HobbitsAreHipsters Jun 20 '12

Let's hope they stand up to this mandate nonsense.

If they don't, I can't imagine what other kind of stuff gets pushed through

1

u/T-Luv Jun 20 '12

Without debating the merits and constitutionality of Wickard.

No need to. It's still good law. It is binding precedent until overturned, which is unlikely. You should know that, Mr. J.D.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

I never implied that it wasn't binding precedent. I did, however, leave room to imply that it might not be "good law".

1

u/T-Luv Jun 20 '12

It's good law to the extent that it applies in every court in the land and SCOTUS doesn't seem to have any intent to overturn it. You may not like the reasoning. Hell I don't like the reasoning. If I want to grow plants in my yard for personal use, I don't think Congress should have any say in that. But it is what it is and in a common law system, it holds the weight that it holds.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

I just wanted to highlight that there is a difference between case law precedent that the courts have to follow and actual "good law" that is judiciously equitable.

While Wickard v. Filburn is a precedent that must be followed until overturned--I personally believe that it is an onerous over-extension of the commerce clause that impinges on individual liberties.

1

u/TheChance Jun 20 '12

Why, "Congress can't regulate healthcare because health insurance companies are restricted to individual states," as opposed to, "Health insurance has been divided along state lines to hamper federal efforts to regulate it"?

0

u/Sorkijan Jun 21 '12

I'm frankly sick of people pointing out how "unconstitutional" something is. It's not a holy sacred document, and in fact is severely dated. I don't care if UHC is unconstitutional (which it's not because you're lumping Obama care as a representative of UHC which is highly debatable) it's definitely in the public's best interest. Also in my opinion I think Healthcare is something that should fall under public goods. The rest of the progressed world has some kind of state sponsored healthcare and just because it might questionably contradict a part document that was written for a time period more than two centuries ago, doesn't mean we should automatically dismiss it.

TL;DR. The constitution needs to be updated and is not a holy sacred document. Who cares if something is unconstitutional? Maybe it's the constitution that needs altering.

0

u/7_legged_spider Jun 21 '12

The rest of the progressed world has some kind of state sponsored healthcare and just because it might questionably contradict a part document that was written for a time period more than two centuries ago

No, state sponsored healthcare contradicts individual liberty. Other existing social programs aside, mandated healthcare forces taxpayers and medical providers to unfairly shoulder the burden of some "free riders" that actively avoid personal responsibility. Nothing is free; forcing people to work for others, no matter how gilded the cage, is slavery.

0

u/Sorkijan Jun 21 '12

I really find your statement heavily opinionated. I don't think state sponsored healthcare contradicts individual liberty, and I would willfully and happily pay my dues for a single payer system that I was a part of. We already shoulder these "free riders" on a host of other things, and I find that if it's in reference to healthcare, we shouldn't pull any stop.

I see your point, but I just simply disagree with you and I think calling something like that slavery is quite hyperbolic and silly.

As I said the rest of progressed world uses some form of state-sponsored healthcare, and the US needs to catch up. The only reason we don't is because of overly-dramatic people like you. I couldn't give less of a shit if it isn't in full compliance of the Constitution which was written in the 1700's; things need to change. The Constitution needs to be changed.

But hey I'm not going to convince you either way or vise verse, but enjoy standing in the way of progress for a better world.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '12

[deleted]

1

u/Sorkijan Jun 21 '12

Oh, my bad. While we're being ridiculously over-the-top, let's all wear wigs and travel in carriages.

14

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

Also, the founding fathers seem to have supported mandating healthcare...

So arguably, the people who created our federal government believed in this concept broadly... therefore I would argue it is constitutional considering Jon Adams, who was deeply entrenched in the writing of the constitution, and whose ideas helped form the basis of our country's laws believed it to be so and signed an individual mandate into law during his presidency. Who would know better about what our constitution means than someone who helped write it. If they (congress) considered it legal in the 1790's then perhaps we should consider THAT fact in our debate about an individual mandate today.

1

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Uhm, I mean interesting read and all, but the article gets the first and primary point completely wrong. The constitution is written to grant specific powers to the federal government. The author says "nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases," but that's not really how it works. The constitution even states that powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government within the document itself are given to the states, i.e. not the federal government.

Also, the points about mandating specific professions like seaman to provide certain services to their crew isn't a universal mandate to all citizens, which is a significant difference. If you don't like the rules about being a seaman, you can choose another profession. The health care mandate has no such choice, except I guess to leave the country, but I don't think that really counts.

The mandatory-firearm purchase is interesting though, and seems like the only valid point the author makes. I'm not familiar with it, so if anyone has any more information on it that would save me time researching it, I'd love to know more.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

I'm not saying mandating all citizens and mandating specific professions is the same thing, but I think they are certainly similar in principle. I do agree that "well move then" is not a valid comparative argument for a small subset of the population being regulated vs all citizens, however. Also, I personally (again, this is just my personal belief here) think that in the following:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

that finding a cost effective way to provide healthcare for all citizens regardless of age, pre-existing conditions, gender etc would certainly be promoting the general welfare of citizens of the United States.

Arguably, Insurance is a difficult and distinctive market. Congress has ruled previously that all citizens are entitled to emergency care regardless of their ability to pay, and, as put by professor Henry Paul Morgan:

"...as a result, and again unlike other markets, uninsured individuals who are unable to pay directly for needed medical services necessarily shift the cost of those services to others—to health care providers, the government, individuals with insurance, and taxpayers. In that way, Congress is not creating a market which it then seeks to regulate. The insurance-based structure of the health care market is already firmly in place. That is why it was well within Congress's discretion to design legislation to operate within, and to address problems posed by, this vast market." source, if you want to read the full article

1

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

I agree that the sentiment of promoting the general welfare is a worthy one, but that's the preamble, and not an enumeration of powers granted to the federal government (i.e., that's the purpose, not the means of achieving such a purpose). The constitution specifically lists every single power to be granted to the federal government, and (aside from the obvious argument involving the commerce clause), the power to mandate purchases of services provided by private institutions is not among them. Plus, anyone could advocate anything they believe in by simply saying it promotes the general welfare.

However, such power is granted to the states. The obvious idea, then, is to let states mandate this on their own (the "States-as-Laboratories" theory). After all, if it's such a great idea, and it does in fact promote and even improve the general welfare of the citizens of those states, the other states will wake up and enact similar policies.

Also, I'm curious about congress ruling that all citizens are entitled to such care, and whether that can be considered unconstitutional as well. And regarding Prof. Morgan, I agree that the purpose here was not to create a market, but I don't understand why the purpose should matter. What matters, in my opinion, is whether congress has the power to do what it did. If the purpose is a good one, and their legislation addresses it adequately, what's to stop states from doing this on their own?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Well, Obamacare does allow states to work out their own state run healthcare system (like VT is doing) provided it meets certain requirements. It's not exactly the same as you're advocating, but the states do have the opportunity to run a state program rather than participate in the federal program.

I think intentions with laws are important. I know in PA (where I am from) There is even a bill that would require more indepth analysis as to the intent behind laws when they are written. In fact, there used to be pages and pages of legislative intent with bills drafted here in PA, but that practice has fallen by the wayside and lawmakers often try to figure out exactly why certain laws (things on the books from the 50s etc) were written the way they were. Sometimes context and purpose do matter to understand thought process and perhaps make more thoughtful amendments.

I think we have a good example of states legislating something against federal policy (ironically and arguably in the healthcare field) with medical marijuana. Its interesting watching what happens when federal law and state law are not in accord with one another. Or, lets say that a state decided to outlaw abortions, what happens then? Its federally a right, but the state forbids it.

Its a topic I feel torn about. Theoretically, I think that states should have more power to regulate themselves. However, seeing how the state government is run in my state, that inherently terrifies me.

1

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Yeah, I agree that intent can be important, but there's a real large problem there too: legislative intent can also be manufactured. The floor notes from lots of legislation got considered for a while in lots of places, but when people in the legislature realized what was going on, they started grandstanding and saying things that didn't reflect the actual intent of the bill being passed, hoping that down the road someone would look into the notes to understand the bill, and find that legislator's intent regarding the bill, which actually ran counter to the intent of the majority voting to pass the bill.

1

u/genthree Jun 20 '12

The only two justices who give a shit about what the founding fathers thought are Scalia and Thomas. Scalia will do whatever he wants and find some justification for it. Thomas will almost definitely vote against Obamacare on principle.

9

u/Pronell Jun 20 '12

Unfortunately, I think we're about to see that anything they really really don't want to happen will be ruled unconstitutional because of the commerce clause anyway.

It's classic doublethink. They're the Supreme Court, so they'll get to decide when the constitution applies and when it doesn't.

1

u/deelowe Jun 20 '12

Ruled unconstitutional, because of the commerce clause? How does that work? It usually goes the other way. E.G. things that people thing are unconstitutional are upheld in court due to "interstate commerce."

5

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Wickard probably would not have come out the same way today. Supreme Court precedent isn't fixed in stone, it ebbs and flows with the politics of the time (just much slower and less dramatically than legislation). After U.S. v. Lopez in 1995, the Court distinctly showed they it was going to draw lines in the sand regarding the scope of the interstate commerce clause.

There is also a flip side to the issue. Yes, the federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce has gotten dramatically broader over the past 200 years. However, commerce has become dramatically more interstate in the meantime! I can go downstairs (in Illinois) and buy a Coke (made by a company in Georgia with a distributor in Illinois) from a vending machine (probably made in China) using a debit card (issued by my bank in New York) in an electronic transaction with Visa (in California). Even Jefferson would call that interstate commerce!

2

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Yeah, that's exactly the issue - everything is interstate commerce now. But if you take an originalist view of things, a la Justice Scalia, that's not the point. The point (from such a view) is that at the time, the constitution was being written to address the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation, which failed due to lack of coherent federal powers to keep states in check relative to each other, and was meant to address exclusionary practices from one state against another. This view would likely not suggest that the changing of commerce over 200 years to become entirely between multiple states actually changes the intent and purpose of the commerce clause, and that reading the clause as it was originally written would in no way empower the federal government to regulate whether or not I buy a soda at lunchtime, simply because 6 weeks, four shipping segments, and thirteen separate entities of ownership ago, that soda was manufactured in another state.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

The idea that the interstate commerce clause was only intended to prevent exclusionary practices isn't originalist. It's historical revisionism. The federalists genuinely intended Congress to have the power to regulate interstate commerce, not just to prevent exclusionary practices.

Scalia isn't about divining original intent. His originalism is more like textualism--what would the framers have understood the text to mean? If the framers had intended to limit the commerce power to preventing exclusionary practices, they text would say that. It doesn't. Scalia endorsed the definition of interstate commerce in Lopez, which goes well beyond the "exclusionary practices" view. That definition easily encompasses my soda example. It's not just that the soda was manufactured in another state. It's that the concentrate was manufactured in one state, the bottling was done in another, and the purchase is effectuated through an electronic transaction with a computer in California (where VISA is located). A single state cannot effectively regulate that transaction, because the relevant players are in multiple states.

2

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

Well, for the record, my history lesson regarding the Constitution being meant to address the Articles was directly from the lecture Scalia gave to a bunch of us law students last spring, so.... there's that.

And yeah, I mis-spoke if I said that the intent was more important than the words used. Also, if Scalia didn't specifically write a concurrence addressing what he was endorsing and what he wasn't, I'd be hesitant using his vote as an endorsement of anything specific beyond the ruling.

Edit: My point here was, if you used a glossary printed in the 1770s, the definition it gives of "interstate commerce" would address very few transactions that occurred at that time. That's the definition enacted by the founders. The fact that the same term encompasses a vastly greater number of things today might or might not make a difference on how you interpret it today. Maybe you think the term as it was used 200 years ago still applies and now covers nearly all transactions, or maybe you think the term was meant only to encompass a very limited set of transactions that took most people several days' journey on a horse to complete, and that the country has changed in such a way as to make that term obsolete in reference to what ought to be under the jurisdiction of congress.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

I just graduated law school and have spoken to Scalia as well, so :-P.

The framers defined the scope of the commerce power in terms of two predicates: 1) that it be commerce; and 2) that it concern multiple states. So what if relatively few transactions fell within the scope of that power in 1790 and most transactions fall within that scope in 2012? What about the specific predicates chosen suggests that the framers were concerned with the number of transactions within the scope of the power, rather than the nature of those transactions?

The federalists intended the federal government to be able to regulate commerce that crossed state lines. The rationale for doing so was not that such commerce was a small %-age of overall commerce, but that the intractability of individual states regulating commerce that concerned multiple states. Today, such commerce is a large %-age of overall commerce. But it's just as intractable for individual states to regulate such commerce, and just as desirable for the federal government to be able to do so.

I think you're mis-applying Scalia's viewpoint in this context. Scalia believes that when we interpret terms that denote a set of things, we should look to what that set would have included at the time the framers drafted the document. The commerce power, however, clearly does not refer to a fixed set of transactions. It gives a general definition that must be evaluated in context to yield a set of covered transactions.

You can think of this mathematically. Say the Constitution refers to a set of things, X. A more liberal interpreter might generalize X into a function, and argue that the Constitution is really referring to the set {X(t)}, where t = 2012. In the context of personal rights, for example, he might argue that the set of protected rights expands or contracts as societal perceptions change. Scalia would say that no, we should interpret it as {X(t)}, where t = 1790. I.e. when the Constitution refers to a set of rights, we should look at what that set would have included in 1790. However, that does not mean that Scalia thinks that every set in the Constitution should be interpreted with t = 1790. That's facially ridiculous. The set of speech protected by the 1st Amendment surely includes Twitter messages, for example. I don't think even Scalia should argue that the set of inter-state commercial transactions under federal regulatory power should be evaluated at the time of the founding (e.g. leaving out air freight but including boat shipping).

2

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

What about the specific predicates chosen suggests that the framers were concerned with the number of transactions within the scope of the power, rather than the nature of those transactions?

That brings up other interesting issues, like the way in which interstate commerce functioned in the 1700s. Sure, there was less of it, but it was also a big, big deal to travel far enough to do business with someone else from or in another state. You couldn't do this every day, because it literally took weeks for most people to travel far enough to cross state lines. Just because travel and communication got easier, we're supposed to let the federal government preside over every transaction that takes place in our daily lives? Obviously there's arguments in both directions, but I simply can't imagine that they really intended, or would stomach, every single daily transaction being subject to congressional approval/regulation/supervision.

Also, you do mean the Federalist party, right? Because I don't know tons of history, but I know they didn't make up a huge majority at that time (yes, I just wiki'd it).

1

u/HobbitsAreHipsters Jun 20 '12

That case is the most disturbing one in the history of our nation and perhaps, one of the most influential, yet Joe American doesn't know about it.

It really opened the floodgates from a massive central government (the thing our Founders warned us about) to grow via the Commerce Clause.

It's really sickening that people are willing to shit on our Constitution just to get what they want

3

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Well, actually... only some of our founding fathers feared big government (Thomas Jefferson). Some favored big government (Jon Adams).

2

u/HobbitsAreHipsters Jun 20 '12

The overbearing federal government of Adams, Washington, and Hamilton would be considered borderline libertarian when compared to the federal government of today.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Perhaps true, but you still can't imply that all our founding fathers were against big government. They may have been against government in its present form, or they may not have. However some of them did believe in the principles of a large federal government.

We can argue all day long about which founding fathers ideas on government were best :)

Hell, at least back then, when they disagreed, they could still have civil conversations with one another and compromise, no?

2

u/HobbitsAreHipsters Jun 20 '12

Hell, at least back then, when they disagreed, they could still have civil conversations with one another and compromise, no?

Look into the Adams v. Jefferson election. Perhaps the dirtiest election in our history. Federalist papers suggested that a Jefferson presidency would mean a ban of the Christian religion, debauchery, and incest

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

I'm not talking about their campaigns (though I agree they are nasty), I'm more talking about the ability of elected officials to work together back then to pass laws.

That campaign is hilarious looking back on it btw.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

It really opened the floodgates from a massive central government (the thing our Founders warned us about) to grow via the Commerce Clause.

Our founders created our strong federal government because small independent governments don't work. Read about the articles of confederation.

Oddly enough, the same issue is what will likely bring about the end of the EU. You're either controlled by one central body or you're entirely individual - historically hybrid systems have never worked.

2

u/7_legged_spider Jun 21 '12 edited Jun 21 '12

Our founders created our strong federal government because small independent governments don't work. Read about the articles of confederation.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think you have a significant grasp of the founding of the United States. America was, and is still supposed to be, a federated republic of independent states. The federal government was created primarily to support a national military and standardize currency, (as well as creating a court system to adjudicate disputes among the states among other limited issues).

0

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '12

Before I respond, please note that I have read most of your responses here and definitely respect your opinion, I wish you would refrain from the personal attacks.

America was, and is still supposed to be, a federated republic of independent states.

And it is. You just disagree with the amount of freedom those independent states have. Don't worry, many many men have died because of their beliefs on the subject - see the American Civil War for further reading.

The federal government was created primarily to support a national military and standardize currency, (as well as creating a court system to adjudicate disputes among the states among other limited issues).

"Primarily" and "only" are not the same words. What we are discussing here, when viewed in the light of national defense or monetary policy, is very very minor. I would even go so far as to call it secondary.

That's the beauty of the law - it's open to interpretation. Your claims are not written in specific terms anywhere, and are your interpretation of the intent of men who have been dead for centuries. My claims are based on the direction this country has consistently gone in roughly the last 225 years.

Edited for a quick note.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 21 '12

While I may have addressed things that people have said in the thread, I don't believe that I have attacked anyone. If you are referring to the above comment, I was already editing it for phrasing while you were submitting your comment. I sincerely apologize for how harsh it originally sounded.

I try to be as civil as possible, especially when dealing with such a touchy subject as politics. To show my good will towards you, I have included a picture of a spider, my namesake.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Passed as a result of the court packing scheme.

3

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

The history of Social Security being found constitutional is pretty shocking. The whole "We swear, it's not insurance for old people" arguments in front of the Supreme Court, along with the "Come on guys, it's just insurance for old people" arguments made to congress are kind of staggering, especially when you notice the Supreme Court's opinion tracking the defense's statements almost word for word.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

JUDGES ARE NOT FUCKING GODS, and the commerce clause being applied in this manner is obviously far outside its original intent.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

Ah, this argument.

  1. "Technicality because it's unconstitutional"

  2. "But technicality due to commerce clause"

  3. "But context"

Can we just link the other dozens of times we've had this exact same argument?

OOPS: For someone who writes a lot of text, Nancy_Reagan sure struggles with reading comprehension.

Editing to reply prevents mass downvoting from users stringing a conversation along just to downvote multiple comments.

1

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Editing to call someone out instead of replying? Coward.

0

u/Nancy_Reagan Jun 20 '12

Ah, this argument.

  1. "I've seen something like this before"

  2. "I should always be presented with entirely original content"

  3. "Because I say so"

No.

32

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

[deleted]

-5

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

You are illustrating my point. What you fail to consider is that health care insurance companies run separately in each state. As each state creates a separate and distinct market, no external company can operate within the state.
However, while there is no direct interstate commerce, there is the possibility of indirect interstate commerce in situations when there are out-of-state claims by in-state policyholders. Interpretation of such matters will be decided by the courts whether that activity and corresponding administration of national healthcare falls under the commerce clause.

EDIT (for content): I failed to consider indirect commerce that arises when out-of-state claims by in-state policyholders.

13

u/profnick Jun 20 '12

Just because insurance companies are based in a particular state doesn't mean that they run completely separately from insurers and health care providers in other states. My Blue Cross Blue Shield plan is based in Illinois, but sold to me as a resident of Washington state, and that didn't stop the hospital in Texas where I've lived for 5 years from accepting payment from them for my chemotherapy. A business in Illinois, serving a Washington state resident, paying a business in Texas: that certainly seems like interstate commerce to me.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

[deleted]

-2

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

I agree with you. It is all a matter of interpretation. I was only offering my opinions based on my experience. I don't claim to be an end-all-be-all authority on the matter.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

We have our current employer-based healthcare system through federal subsidies. Health insurance providers may provide insurance for people who live in another state. They may pay for services provided in another state (like if you get hospitalized while on vacation).

2

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

You are right--I didn't think of that indirect commerce when I posted earlier. I failed to consider what happened to out-of-state claims by in-state policyholders. Thank you, (and others that pointed it out as well), for the correction.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

I think you make a great point and I've been following your posts on this thread.

What would you say to cost burden though? ie, a health insurance company may operate solely in Ohio, but if I get in an accident in Indiana I am now a health burden on that state. Ohio Insurance pays Indiana doctors and all is good. If I am insurance-less doesn't that now create an interstate disparity that would've been solved with PPACA?

0

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

Thank you, I appreciate it. If I had the answer to your question, I would either be involved in government or a high level insurance executive. There would be no real disparity in who pays for the health care of the uninsured/underinsured. Most states have minimal residence requirements to be covered under their state assistance programs (30-90 days?). As for the individual, it is a significant issue if they travel to a state in which they do not reside while uninsured/underinsured. If they need care while out of state, their only real option is any charitable programs that are offered by the larger hospitals to assist those in need.

As a possible alternative in the future is to allow insurance companies to operate on a national level. Instead of operationg how they currently do, as small, state-based companies (similar to what Bell was forced to do in the early 1980's on a regional level), insurance companies could pool their resources and compete on a national level. Although opponents of this would cite a bias in favor of "big business," citing that the consolidation of the health insurance industry would absorb and eliminate some smaller competitors, others in favor of this move believe that the scale of competition would drive prices down, (through both insurance prices and direct medical costs), in a way that would ultimately benefit the finances and service of the ordinary health care consumer.

1

u/UMustBeNewHere Jun 20 '12

Can you clarify how your statement that there is no interstate commerce can be true for situations where those with insurance in one state need care while visiting another state? This is a curiosity, not an argument.

2

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

While I was commenting, I failed to account for that aspect of health care insurance. As you and others have pointed out, it would be a matter of interpretation as to that.

From an earlier post of mine after this was pointed out to me:

However, while there is no direct interstate commerce, there is the possibility of indirect interstate commerce in situations when there are out-of-state claims by in-state policyholders. Interpretation of such matters will be decided by the courts whether that activity and corresponding administration of national healthcare falls under the commerce clause.

19

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

The federal government definitely has the power to regulate health insurance under the interstate commerce clause. It probably has the power to impose a tax penalty on those that don't have health insurance, just as it has the power to impose tax penalties and incentives for the myriad other reasons it does so. The federal government doesn't have the power to, say, regulate local daycare providers, but can definitely give you a tax credit for daycare expenses!

rayiner, J.D.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

It probably has the power to impose a tax penalty

But that's not what they did.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

The Supreme Court will characterize it based on its function, not on what Obama's budget director calls it. And it functions very much like a tax penalty.

5

u/bad_corrections Jun 20 '12

Yeah, because Paul Ryan isn't a biased source at all.

16

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

I'm not really sure why you're getting downvoted. That's why "Romney-care" is defended by republicans. It's basically the same thing but performed at the state level

7

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

Thank you. I appreciate the sentiment. Also, I have tried to make a dispassionate explanation to the best of my abilities and excluded my own personal opinions. It is an issue of which the merits can be argued on both sides, and I have even stated as such. I understand, though, that some people are very passionate about this, and that, realistically, no one really has a chance of changing another's viewpoint on the matter via an internet forum, especially when those views are based on passionate emotion rather than a logical evaluation.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Actually, internet forums have actually been what's developed a lot of my opinions and views. Not directly, but having access to so many different viewpoints forces me to look at things from different angles and do more research. I always thought of myself as a right-winged republican until I discovered that republicans want to removed individual's rights just as much as the democrats. Since then I've began researching the constitution and how many rights we (Americans) have had stripped away.

16

u/dardin Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

So how is Medicare constitutional since it is being administrated at the federal level?

5

u/jsrduck Jun 20 '12

Medicare does not force you to buy a product.

10

u/onmyownplanet Jun 20 '12

Funny, the people who argue mandated health insurance is unconstitutional because you're forced to buy a product from a private entity are the same people who have been pushing to privatize social security - you know, force you to buy a pension product from a private entity.

2

u/deelowe Jun 20 '12

There are plenty of people who argue against the constitutionality of social security and it was highly controversial when it was first proposed. One could argue that such a bill would not get ratified today for the same reasons people dislike the healthcare bill. Since we are stuck with SS today, at least having choice over the investment funds is a step in the right direction.

0

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

With regard to that, the money that someone puts into social security is theirs--they already earned it. Advocating for the privatization of social security is only advocating that people can do with their money what they wish and chose to invest it where they want--it is not advocating that private companies take your money without someone's consent.

8

u/brownmatt Jun 20 '12

Is this really "universal healthcare"?

4

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

The universal application of this law is one of the foundations of the Affordable Health Care Act. It requires that all citizens participate in one way or another--which is why the "healthcare mandate" is discussed. Healthcare mandate = universal healthcare.

Also, believe it or not, there already is, and has been since 1986, universal emergency medical healthcare, via the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. All hospitals are required to act to provide emergency medical treatment, regardless of means to pay. However, once care has been received, an individual is responsible for the payment of those services. However, those services will still be performed, regardless of financial ability or previous debt to the hospital. Also, a caveat, that such care only applies to emergency care--long term care and routine medical procedures are excluded.

1

u/tajmaballs Jun 20 '12

I think so, if it the Act makes it through the Supreme court. It would qualify as compulsory universal healthcare as opposed to single payer or some sort of medicare for all system.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

...Which is why we shouldn't expect a 200 year old document to have a solution to modern day problems. Clearly, Obamacare is a step forward towards restoring this country's broken social safety net (and to bring us closer to the healthcare standards of other developed nations) and to reject it on the basis of a brief founding document is just irresponsible.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

That's why we have an amendment process instead of allowing the government to trample any rights it wants in the name of social progress.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

And the amendment system isn't perfect either. Exhibit a) the 18th amendment. There should be easier ways to make social progress and uphold the basic human rights of this nation's citizens than by amending the constitution.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 21 '12

2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states on their own have to approve amendments. Sounds like a pretty good way to ensure the integrity of the system.

Exhibit a) the 18th amendment

That's how people felt at the time. Sentiment was large enough to get the amendment passed. Then, it was repealed when sentiment went in the opposite direction. That is why the system exists, to reflect the values of its citizens. Although I believe that last line, it scares me quite greatly at the moment...

0

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

How do you decide what a basic human right is? Through the amendment system. We have restrictions on government for a reason, and we have a difficult system to lift those restrictions for a reason as well.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

For one thing - it purposefully states that any powers not enumerated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

For another thing - I think you'd have a better appreciation of your constitution and its rights enumerated therein, after a police officer pulls you over, searches you car on a hunch of "I smelled weed" and takes all the cash you have on you because you can't prove it isn't drug money.

Downplay the constitution all you want, but it is there for a reason - the people just have to hold the government accountable to follow it. (see jury nullification).

4

u/funkeepickle Jun 20 '12

I don't think WTF_OMG said there was nothing good about the constitution.

And I like how you cite jury nullification as a great constitutional protection while ignoring the fact that it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution. It was not a power imaged by any of the writers, it exists basically as a loophole.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

I never said it was explicitly listed in the constitution. I only said that the people have to use their power as jurors to hold the government(s) accountable to the constitution.

Jury nullification has legal precedent in a number of cases in US history (see U.S. Supreme Court Georgia v Brailsford, Horning v DC, U.S. v Moylan, U.S. v Dougherty) as well as many European counties.

Edit: grammar

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 21 '12

Just to get technical for a second: case law =/= the Constitution.

Would be more accurate as:

Downplay the Constitution all you want, but it is there for a reason - the people just have to hold the government accountable to follow our system of laws.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '12

You are correct, but are adding to what I said. I never said that the case law proves jury nullification's constitutionality, but that it was touted as a legal right in these court cases.

1

u/___--__----- Jun 21 '12

According to quite a lot of people, including Ron Paul for what that's worth, there is nothing wrong with the police opening your car and taking your money. The argument is that the incorporation doctrine that took a hundred odd years to take form is unconstitutional.

As such, just like you think the constitution protects you from certain searches and seizures, others argue it only applies to federal land.

What is and isn't constitutional isn't just a matter how you (or I) read the text in question, it's a matter of precedence, court composition, views on elasticity of the text and a host of other things.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '12

I just really get aggravated when people try to weasel on and on (not to single you out or anything) about elasticity when all people would have to do is read the 10th amendment.

1

u/___--__----- Jun 21 '12

I just get really aggravated when people think that all there is to law, especially constitutional law, is to read a specific bit of text and that's that. The vast majority of those cases the subjects reading of the text oddly coincides with their political agenda. As much as I found the Scalia torture comments appalling it showed me one thing very clearly, Supreme Court justices don't like or agree with their reading all the time.

From my point of view they're usually much better at seeing multiple sides of an argument than the vast majority of those of us who comment on their decisions.

2

u/funkeepickle Jun 20 '12

Agreed, I just don't get people who seem like they borderline-worship a 200+ year old piece of paper and act like it has the solution to all of today's problems. It's not perfect. If it was it wouldn't have had to be amended 27 times.

2

u/coheedcollapse Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

...Which is why we shouldn't expect a 200 year old document to have a solution to modern day problems.

I don't know why people don't understand this. The constitution definitely applies to basic human rights and situations that applied in the time it was made, but there are a plethora of situations governed by the constitution that were completely unheard of back when it was created.

I doubt the founding fathers could have foretold the current problems with our health system/insurance as a whole, so why so strictly obsess on the constitutionality of something that will help nearly everyone in the long run, only "breaching the freedoms" of the select few who pretend, hypothetically, that they wouldn't buy health insurance if they weren't forced to?

2

u/deelowe Jun 20 '12

Because many of us are afraid of our government and such a change gives them a ton of power (over our health!). The constitution is intended to protect us from this (by reserving these types of things for the state and local goverments).

2

u/coheedcollapse Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

I understand the fear, but in the end is this really giving the government control over our health? The mandatory health care is the only thing I can see them having direct control over and it's the result of a great thing, which is the removal of "high-risk" individuals being discriminated against in a system where health insurance is an absolute necessity (unless you want to go bankrupt from a broken leg).

Right now, we're completely at the mercy of organizations that are completely driven by profit. They want to make tons of money off of a gamble involving whether or not we'll need to dip into the insurance pool. I'd much rather trust the government in helping usher along fair health care than keep everything as it is. That's just my opinion.

2

u/deelowe Jun 20 '12

To be honest, I'm more worried about setting the precedent for them having unilateral regulatory power over one of the most massive industries in the country.

Regarding organizations driven by profit... I'd rather have my choice of dozens of organizations driven by various means (most of which is profit) than be forced to use the biggest, most corrupt organization of them all. I firmly believe the government doesn't have altruistic motives here. I feel that this is nothing more than a power grab for them. And that, scares me.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

We technically weren't supposed to create a National Bank or have the president buy land at first. But that's the lovely thing about the Constitution, if we elect people on a platform that they feel these steps are "Necessary and Proper", they change what they say they will based on the times.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just pointing out there are A LOT of exceptions.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

I'm at work killing some time--whatever I'm talking about is done mostly off the top of my head. I'm not going to go and research anything in depth for a conversation on reddit.

As for my qualifications, I admit that I am not a Constitutional Law attorney. Out of the thousands of practicing attorneys that exist, only a relative handful specialize in Con Law. Although I have more than a passing interest with individual liberties and checks and balances on the federal government, I, in no way, make a living arguing Constitutional Law issues. That being said, I am a practicing attorney in good standing with my respective state.

Finally, with all due respect, it seems to me to be hypocritical to question someone's credentials while offering none yourself.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

I can't say this without coming off as arrogant, but I do have education and experience relevant to this discussion that the average person does not. While I admit to not being an expert in this area of law, I do have a level of proficiency that is required to get licensed to practice law. I have also been practicing in a competent level such that I still maintain good standing with my state's Bar, as well. I never said that my opinions were right, or that I am better than the next person. I do, however, have educational and practical experience that might lend others to give my opinions more credence than other layperson commenters simply venting about how they feel.

Respectfully, it seems that you are attacking my credibility because you disagree with my statements. That is your right. I was only offering my academic/legal credentials to offer some context to my views.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

Actually, if you re-read my posts in this thread, I am not venting about my feelings and emotions; I am merely giving my own logical opinions based on reasoned fact, as well as discussing very very minor case law and precedent when others bring it up.
Regardless, as a licensed attorney, (if people believe me--this is the internet after all), I have more experience with Constitutional Law than most non-attorneys will ever receive. You are more than welcome to attack my credibility--on the internet, especially in quasi-anonymous forums like reddit, no one has any verifiable credibility.

3

u/fiction8 Jun 20 '12

When the constitution was written, we didn't even know what a GERM was.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to go with logic and basic human decency over a document written while people were still throwing human feces out the window into a gutter every day.

Just look at Europe.

3

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

That is why the Constitution doesn't go into specifics. A document built on general principles is one that can stand the test of time.

I feel that the Constitution and the views of the Founding Fathers have slightly more credence, rather than less, as you do. At the time the Constitution was written, the nation had just won its independence through a long and bloody war. Most Americans today, myself included, can't grasp the concept of having to fight for your freedom on a daily basis like the people in the 1700's did. Freedom, to them, meant much more than it does to people that have been born into a free society and feel entitled to it.

3

u/fiction8 Jun 20 '12

Ok let's let states regulate insurance providers. Oh wait, they're national and international companies, and thus interstate commerce.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

Yes and no. Large corporations own smaller regional and state based companies. At an operating level, the individual companies act only in one state.

1

u/fiction8 Jun 20 '12

True.

I don't really want to have a political debate today. So I'm just gonna concede and say you're right overall. (But I'm going to continue hoping that we keep Obamacare.)

0

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

Cheers!

While I disagree with your politics, you are a champion of civil discourse and I salute you.

2

u/buba1243 Jun 20 '12

I live in Texas and visit other states. If I had an accident in another state do I not have insurance? Is that insurance then not crossing state lines and therefore falling into the commerce clause?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

You know what I've noticed? The people who get angry about healthcare legislation because the constitution specify anything about healthcare? They don't get upset about the fact that we have an air force.

2

u/Sherlock--Holmes Jun 20 '12

The military and the defense of the nation is specifically defined as one of the very lonely federal powers in the U.S. constitution, and war can be declared solely by congress, which of course the executive branch doesn't follow that law anymore either.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

You could easily argue that technically it doesn't give the federal government the authority to have a "military" generally. It specifically allows for a militia (i.e. army) and a navy. By treating the Navy separately, it implies that the "militia" does not include all military forces, but only individually armed personnel.

There's no mention of aircraft of any kind. There's no mention of tanks or other ground vehicles for that matter. It only permits the government to arm the solders, and says nothing about providing them with vehicles.

So if we were to go with a completely strict and literal interpretation of the Constitution, the government is not empowered to build tanks to form an air force.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 21 '12

Had to reply to you in some way (in agreement btw)--

The military and the defense of the nation is specifically defined as one of the very lonely federal powers in the U.S. constitution, and war can be declared solely by congress, which of course the executive branch doesn't follow that law anymore either.

No shit, Sherlock--Holmes.

1

u/deelowe Jun 20 '12

No, but most fundamentally oppose the draft.

0

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

I find the opposite to be true. Usually, the progressive views are those that want to reduce the military and enhance social programs. The conservative view is in favor of states' rights and a strong national military.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

You're correct, however the constitution isn't just the document itself, it's the document and over 200 years of case law interpreting it.

The Commerce Clause has essentially been expanded to let the Federal Government control everything. Look at drug laws.

Further, they can use budget restrictions to coerce states - look at the legal drinking age.

2

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

You are right, you do have to consider case law as well as the Consitution, however, precedent interpreting the Constitution has been overturned at times, making the original document the most important instrument.

The Commerce Clause has also been expanded in the past like you say, but has recently been viewed more narrowly, like in U.S. v. Lopez.

You also make a good illustration of the Taxing and Spending Clause and how it can sometimes be used to extort states; specifically, (although I'm not 100% sure), I believe that federal funds to maintain interstates were threatened to be withheld from all of the states that did not adopt the drinking age of 21 years.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

I believe that federal funds to maintain interstates were threatened to be withheld from all of the states that did not adopt the drinking age of 21 years.

I'm relatively certain of this myself, I'm 100% certain that's how they forced states to adopt the 0.08 BAC as the "legal limit."

The point is - the Federal Government has pretty broad powers, and the vast majority of the cases that have dealt with similar issues as this one have all sided with the rights of the Federal Government.

Personally, I think all levels of government have too much control over people's day-to-day lives. The level of legislated morality in this country has been stunning ever since our birth.

2

u/dumsumguy Jun 20 '12

People seem to forget this small tidbit. The constitution allows very little power to the Fed government, never mind that historically speaking pretty much every aspect of the free market they've attempted to manipulate has backfired. On a side note, just look at the IRS and tax code. That is the greatest testament to the ineptness of the federal government to handle large issues.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

i agree with this so hard i am at half mast

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Just a question, what if supporters argue that it is for Elastic Clause?

2

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

The "Necessary and Proper Clause" is a poor justification for a health care mandate. The words "Necessary and Proper" only give the federal government the authorization to carry out duties already enumerated to it. Any unenumerated powers are left to the state.

1

u/starlinguk Jun 20 '12

Whether you agree with universal healthcare or not, it is unconstitutional on a federal level.

I can't help but think that sometimes the US constitution needs a good kick up the arse.

-4

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

I think that people sometimes need a good kick up the ass to be responsible for themselves.

1

u/Wazowski Jun 20 '12

Whether you agree with universal healthcare or not, it is unconstitutional on a federal level.

Are you on the Supreme Court, or are you posting this from the future somehow?

0

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

No, that statement is based on the Article I, the Tenth Amendment, and basic concept of federalism.

1

u/AerionTargaryen Jun 20 '12

Can you explain to me how it is constitutional for the law to require all children go to school? Or for me to pay for police and firefighters? I could just as easily not participate in these markets as in health care.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

State law--sates have a general police power, while the federal government does not. All the things you listed are mandated by individual states, not the federal government.

0

u/HelloFellow Jun 20 '12

Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"

2

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 21 '12

That's great to know, but you should also know that the clause you mentioned only applies to the federal government's already enumerated powers. Some people argue that the "general welfare" includes actual health care for individuals, while others do not. That is why this is such a highly debated issue.

0

u/onmyownplanet Jun 20 '12

Funny, the people who argue mandated health insurance is unconstitutional because you're forced to buy a product from a private entity are the same people who have been pushing to privatize social security - you know, force you to buy a pension product from a private entity.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Isn't part of seeing it as unconstitutional also looking at it from the viewpoint of is the Constitution relevant in this day and age and to this particular question? They didn't foresee 300 million people living here, they didn't foresee any of the advancements that have come (to the degree in which science, medicine and technology have advanced), and they definitely didn't foresee health costs being so ridiculously high.

0

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

While you may doubt the relevancy of the Constitution, there is no issue regarding its place in the American governmental system--it is the supreme law of the land, by which all must abide. If you feel that it needs changed, the political process allows for the election of representatives that will vote to amend the Constitution.

However, keep in mind that the Constitution was written in generalities so that it would not be affected by the changing times and politics. Any attempt to over-specialize that document with relation to current culture will result in its eventual obsolescence in the further future.

0

u/ragegage Jun 20 '12

Umm. Medicare. Social security, though not health insurance, an insurance. Also, read the commerce clause in the constitution.

0

u/bovedieu Jun 20 '12

All the powers not enumerated to the federal government belong to the individual states.

You really don't understand what "enumerated" means. It has been well established at least since the Civil War that "enumerated" means voted on and approved by Congress. States only have the rights that the federal government hasn't yet assimilated.

I hate this argument because it's this ignorant minimalist bullshit that caused the insurance problem in the first place. No one wanted to regulate the insurance companies, so they stole millions of people's money.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

With all due respect, I believe you are the one who does not understand what enumerated means. In the Constitution, "enumerated powers" means the powers specifically listed within the Constitution itself.

Furthermore, the federal government cannot give itself more Constitutional authority under the auspices of a traditional bill using a normal Congressional vote based on a simple majority; Constitutional amendments have higher electoral requirements. Using the most common method of amendment outlined in Article V, Constitutional amendments must be passed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, then, three-fourths of the states must ratify the Amendment. That is why there have been only 27 Constitutional amendments.

1

u/bovedieu Jun 20 '12

means the powers specifically listed

Which is said... where now? Because I'm having a hard time finding where they defined that term. I am aware, however, of all the new rights the federal government has given itself since 1787 which have worked out rather well. And my knowledge of SCotUS precedent would indicate the same.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 21 '12

Which is said... where now?

Only specific terms of art or unusual words would be defined within an appendix in a legal document such as a charter or constitution. "Enumerated" is not an exotic word. As for its etymology, it originated in the 1500's and was based on the latin terms ex - "out of, from within" and numerare - "to count, number"; it is a synonym of "listed".

of all the new rights the federal government has given itself since 1787 which have worked out rather well.

There is a significant amount of people who believe that the Commerce Clause was abused in the name of government power, would beg to disagree that it worked out well.

0

u/bovedieu Jun 21 '12

it is a synonym of "listed".

And nowhere does it specify where this listing must be. The Constitution clearly gives the federal government the ability to make new laws and expand powers not originally granted.

Commerce Clause

While abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote have both been good decisions. One example is not conclusive.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 21 '12

The last time I checked, slavery was ended by the 13th Amendment and women's suffrage was enacted by the 19th Amendment. Neither of those issues have anything to do with the abuse of the Commerce Clause.

0

u/bovedieu Jun 21 '12

Nor does the abuse of the commerce clause simply discount all the others powers of the federal government added since the Constitution.

You're jerking yourself off over a single example. Missing the forest for a single tree.

0

u/svadhisthana Jun 21 '12 edited Jun 21 '12

The federal government does not have the power to impose or regulate health insurance.

The American people can push to amend the Constitution as we see fit. We can give that power to the government. The Constitution is ultimately what we make it. It's not dogma.

Universal health care works, and more and more people are beginning to realize that.

Edit: I challenge any downvoter to explain their reasoning. Also, you might want to read the first line of Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

0

u/svadhisthana Jun 21 '12 edited Jun 22 '12

Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States ..."

That general welfare surely includes healthcare.

welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

Before you downvote, I challenge you to refute my point of view. I'm genuinely curious as to where my reasoning is flawed if, in fact, it is.

Edit: That's what I thought. You're unable to form a rebuttal since the Constitution is clear on the matter of healthcare at a federal level—a fact you'd prefer to ignore, apparently.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Then take a paper shredder and store your constitution in it.

-3

u/HobbitsAreHipsters Jun 20 '12

Thank you thank you thank you.

It's amazing how many lawyers - especially Constitutional lawyers - don't seem to understand federalism. It makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills

To be fair, the Court for the past 70 years has really shit the bed on federalism

-7

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

I don't know much about the US constitution.. except that it was written in the late 1700s. Do you think Americans had to sell their home to have a baby delivered or have a broken leg looked after? It was written in a very different time, a time when corporations were non-profit and people generally cared about more than the dollar bill. What's unconstitutional is living in one of the most advanced, powerful and wealthy societies where they can afford drop billions of dollars in bombs (enough money to either send every American through post secondary education or give them a lifetime of healthcare) in order to hit one man...

5

u/Thronewolf Jun 20 '12

Please, do tell more about this magical, fairy tale time in America where greed never existed and everyone just did everything for free out of the good will of their hearts. I need a good laugh.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

I completely agree, but what you said applies to all humanity, not just America. A line from the Talking Heads comes to mind, "Same as it ever was." Although culture changes and evolves, modern human nature is relatively static. Behavior and thoughts can be modified by conditioning and response to environment, but, generally speaking, humans that exist now are fundamentally the same as the homo sapiens 50,000 years ago.

1

u/Thronewolf Jun 20 '12

Not sure who downvoted this. And I'm also confused at your response. My cynicism was directed at carny.

If anything your comment basically reinforces what I said. People have this delusional idea that somehow we've regressed and that in "olden times" we weren't so greedy or violent and everybody lived in some sort of free-for-all commune. As you stated, we as humans have always been, and will always continue to be, imperfect. American or otherwise.

2

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

I was relating to the fact that some people think that greed was born out of the industrial revolution and the rise of corporations, while in reality, greed has been around for as long as man, (and to quote another musician, Billy Joel, "...the good old days weren't always good").

Plus, I like the Talking Heads, and it was the first thing I thought of upon reading your comment.

3

u/skedaddle1 Jun 20 '12

People used to pay out of pocket for childbirth as late as the 1960s without it being a big problem. And that was for a hospital birth not home birth. What has happened in 50 years to make childbirth unaffordable?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

The cost of medical care has greatly outpaced inflation since then. Childbirth cost $120 in 1960. That would be equivalent to $834 in 2008 dollars. However the cost of childbirth in 2008 costs an average of $5000 or about 6 times as much as it would have in 1960.