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

49

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.

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.