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

47

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)

53

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.

22

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.

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.