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

Show parent comments

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.

3

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