PPACA and Scotus

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

The scope is entirely different wrt states and the federal government. Keep in mind that The Constitution is a limiting document. I suspect that a universal care law could be passed and withstand attacks, however, I'm also quite certain that the politcal will is not there to effectively pass such legislation; hence, the reality of making the system we have better by allowing more competition and reducing the micromanaging emanating from government.

Who is stopping competition? Certainly not the Feds. if you are going with the "cross state lines" garbonzoos, that is up to the states, not to mention being one of the dumbest ideas of the decade.

Kind of like so many companies being registered in Delaware. So how come Delaware get to dictate rules to the other 49 states.

Congress is not lacking the will to provide universal heallthcare, they are lacking the intelligence.

John not only Romneycare goes but also the mandate that hospitals must care for the indigent. Not that I really expect Roberts and Co. to have the wit nor wisdom to realize that.

[finnbow]

If the mandate is killed, I'd just as soon that they kill the whole thing. The GOP will be on the hot seat to replace the overwhelmingly popular provisions regarding preexisting conditions and keeping kids on plans until 26. Indeed, the mandate is the operative core of the PPACA and without it, the whole thing collapses under its own weight.

[JJIII]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

Seems pretty simple to me.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Who is stopping competition? Certainly not the Feds. if you are going with the "cross state lines" garbonzoos, that is up to the states, not to mention being one of the dumbest ideas of the decade.

Kind of like so many companies being registered in Delaware. So how come Delaware get to dictate rules to the other 49 states.

Congress is not lacking the will to provide universal heallthcare, they are lacking the intelligence.

John not onlt Romneycare goes but also the mandate that hospitals must care for the indigent. Not that I really expect Roberts and Co. to have the wit nor wisdom to realize that.

I read that Ezra Klein article. I would think that without state government involved in regulations, requirements, that a somewhat unified health insurance product would developed that would appeal to customers. The difference between states has occurred because of the relatively steady increase in requirements over time. Perhaps, even the majority of the requirements were good, but the end effect is the unwieldy system we have today. I'm of the opinion that either a fully universal system, politically untenable, or a much less regulated private system is the answer with both, preferably, not connected to one's employer.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by JJIII

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

Seems pretty simple to me.

If the SCOTUS strikes down any part of the Affordable Care Act that makes it "delegated to the United States by the Constitution". They would have no other basis for taking that decision.

That seems pretty simple to me.

John

[piece-itpete]

So by pretty much simply deciding to take a case, it's Constitutional?

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bhunter

would think that without state government involved in regulations, requirements, that a somewhat unified health insurance product would developed that would appeal to customers.

A "somewhat unified" product is "somewhat" anti-competitive.

The difference between states has occurred because of the relatively steady increase in requirements over time.

The difference between states is the result of the different regulatory regimes from one state to the next. It has nothing to do with the degree of regulation.

John

[merrylander]

If health insurance were to be able to cross state lines they would register in the states with the least control and the customer would get royally screwed. Much like the Delaware deal.

[Oerets]

With the resent decisions handed down by the Roberts Court I see the mandate being struck down. If not the whole Bill. They are trying now to frame it so it will be a narrow as possible would be my guess.

I think the Solicitor General arguing the case did a D- job in front of the court IMO. He never even mentioned the fact our first President mandated healthcare to be provided by employers in 1790.


For those who missed this ...http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....-mandates.html

Barney

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Agreed on Constitutionality.

The Feds have different constitutional issues than States. MA might allow it, but it might be different at the Federal level.

Pete

But, I would think that what is a violation of an individual right under the U.S. Constitution, would be unconstitutional everywhere within the United States. Is that not the drumbeat? People are upset that "the federal government" is trying to force them to buy something they (The individual.) don't want, claiming that this is a violation of their constitutional rights.....right?

But, such individuals would be fine with their state doing the same?

(Consider this: When you hear someone complain about a "constitutional right" being violated, what are they usually referring to? How many people are you aware of that can even tell you what their state constitution consists of? My guess is, that all too many Americans aren't even aware that their state has one of it's own.)

What is the basis for an "Individual Mandate" being constitutional at the state level, but not the federal level, if so many folks believe it is a violation of their rights under the national constitution?

As you've stated, the national constitution is a "limiting document". So, how can the rights of the state exceed what is, ostensibly, forbidden at the federal level?

See what I'm sayin'?

Forcing me to buy insurance is a violation of my rights as an American, but not as a Virginian?

Dave