« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Why I believe SCOTUS will uphold Obamacare.

I hope I’m wrong.

It will all come down as a public safety issue or something along the lines of the common good.Under that the govt. can do practically anything.
I’m not an attorney and that is obvious from my generalizations to support my theory but I believe SCOTUS will uphold Obamacare. One of the main arguments as I have read is does the govt. under the Commerce Clause have the authority to compel you to buy insurance merely as a condition of being a citizen or merely for breathing…?

In my opinion that argument would fail if used to argue against Obamacare because that is not really the issue in my humble layman opinion.
The Commerce Clause gives the govt. broad powers to regulate commerce, all kinds of commerce.
Health care is commerce.

“But NeoKong… what if I choose not to participate in the health care industry. How can they force me to do so or penalize me if I don’t….?”

That’s where they get you.
It can be reasonably assumed as an almost certainty that sooner or later that each and everyone us will in fact participate in the health care system.
There is no way out of it.
Who has never been in a hospital, a doctor’s office or ever examined by a health care professional ?
Is it actually possible to go your whole life and not participate sooner or later?
Not unless you were born in a cab or a barn and died before you ever saw a doctor. While I am sure that has probably occurred in the old days it is quite impossible today.
Like it or not everyone will receive medical attention whether we want to or not.
Then my friend you have just participated in the health care industry and Congress regulates how people participate in industry all the time.

The examples are so numerous that is merely a small extra step to regulate the delivery and purchase of health care very much the same way as driving a car for example.
If you want to participate as a driver you are compelled to buy insurance are you not?
If you want to put a small child in that car you are compelled to buy a car seat …correct…?
While I suppose you do not actually have to buy a car seat but merely use one somebody else purchased. You cannot just make one out of wood.
The govt. can compel you to use certain fuel blends, carry minimum amounts of insurance and require you to spend all sorts of monies to be in compliance with safety regulations.
You can always argue that only applies to people who actually drive and not to people who do not and that is true but if ever want to travel in a vehicle in any way then the govt. can tell you what to do. Seat belt and cell phone laws are a few examples. Public safety man.
You can go your whole life and never drive a car but is is highly unlikely that you will go your whole life and not participate in the health care system.
It is only a matter of time.
If they didn’t get you when you were born they will get you in the nursing home. Then if they can they will seize all your assets.
The odds that somebody could possibly avoid seeing a doctor are astronomical.

“But NeoKong, what if I decide not to have insurance and always pay in cash…?”

That participation thing comes up again.There are plenty of situations where we are told just how we can pay for something. Sometimes only a credit card is allowed or a cashiers check as with an airline ticket or the purchase of property. Can insurance be considered a form of payment as well and subject to regulation? That does not seem to extreme considering how similar things are regulated. At some Dept. of Motor Vehicles they do not accept cash.

You may think it outrageous that the govt. can compel you to buy something you do not want but it is already happening in Massachusetts with Romneycare. (Thanks Mitt)
All the other side has to do is point to that, say it is the exact same thing and it occurs without all the Constitutional drama that people bemoan.

Want more.
The govt. can make you do much worse and has.
This very same court has ruled that the govt. can compel you to sell your property to a local govt. so that they can in turn give it to a private developer in Kelo vs. New London.
The govt. can and has compelled millions of young men to join the Army against their will and go to foreign lands and kill people.
The United States govt. has pushed millions of Indians off their land and forced them to live on reservations.
The govt. can compel you to have a needle stuck in your arm to have a vaccination.
You are compelled to go to school.
You are compelled to pay Social Security and participate in the govt. pension plan.
They can grope you at will at an airport and if you object they will arrest you or at the very least make you miss your flight.
They even can frisk your little baby.
The POTUS can now even put to death a citizen who has been deemed a terror threat just on his order.

The examples of when, where and how federal, state or local govt. can completely own your butt and make you dance like a little puppet and punish you if you do not are endless.

Is Obamacare really that much of a big leap…?
If you think of how many situations you need permits, permission, licenses, training, certification, inspections, insurance, fees and bluh blah blah the list is endless.
Any good sized construction project cannot be done without proper insurance.
If they catch you without insurance you will regret it.
All they have to do is frame the issue as public safety or something for the common good and there it is.
Obamacare.

If they can make you pay income tax for participating in one form of commerce then they can make you buy insurance for participating in a different form of commerce.

The govt. controls us all the time and it is a rare occurrence to see somebody stand up to that.
They can control what you eat, what you wear, what you can say in certain places, where you can live to some degree. They control how you build your home, what type of light bulbs you can use, how much of your property you can cover and even how you use your property.
They can control how you raise your children.
They can seize your children without a court order. All that is required is a zealous social worker with nothing better to do. It happens all the time. They control how you can treat your dog, your horse and even your goldfish.They can even decide when and where you can pee.

You think you have property rights…? That is an illusion.
There isn’t anywhere in the United States where you can do anything you want with your property without official permission. No lot, no farm, no stream, no ranch or spread or anything. At anytime some local turd city official can come in and shut you down and force you to take them to court at your expense while it costs them nothing.
Some unelected zoning board can strip your valuable buildable lot of all it’s value simply by deeming it non-compliant with a local ordinance.They can hold you up for years simply because your neighbor is somebody’s brother in-law.
Happens all the time.

When compared with some of the things that govt. can compel you to do the idea that they can make you buy health insurance seems tame.
I wish that was the worst they could do to me but on a scale of one to ten…that is a two.

That’s how I see it.

COMMENTS

  • barleycorn

    I disagree with this statement:

    “The Commerce Clause gives the govt. broad powers to regulate commerce, all kinds of commerce.”

    I hold that in fact the “commerce clause” was quite narrow as originally drawn but has been broadened by mischief makers to push a big government agenda.

    But your overall point is spot on. Obamacare is only a recent example of 90 years of government overreach far beyond what the founders envisioned.

    • NeoKong

      “I hold that in fact the

  • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

    You ask who does not eventually participate in the health care industry, and I offer to you a teenager who dies of a drug overdose. This teenager made bad choices, and paid the ultimate price, but he may never have had any health care.

    If the supremes want a narrow decision that does not relate at all to the Wicker v. Filner decision, then they might want to rule on original contracts that must be voluntary. All the stuff you bring up about divorces are the secondary penalties that can happen after you voluntarily entered into the original marriage contract.

    • NeoKong

      Comment below.

  • NeoKong

    Most likely in today’s world.
    Almost all babies receive quite a bit of medical care.
    A mother could get in trouble for not bringing her baby to a doctor.
    Maybe you have a point about the divorce thing. I guess my point was that one partner is severely burdened while the other is not so much.
    One walks away with so much more.

    I was watching the arguments on C-span a little while ago and the main focus of the questioning was whether the fines for not carrying insurance were a penalty or a tax.
    A tax is a revenue generator while a penalty is an enforcement mechanism.
    The distinction was important because if it is a tax apparently you cannot sue for relief unless the tax is paid first and all other remedies are exhausted for what my little brain could absorb.That argument would help the U.S. Solicitor General as I understood it.

    • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

      This teenager probably was delivered by a midwife at home instead of in a hospital. I will be surprised if the supremes decide that this case is not ripe until someone has paid the tax first.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        I think its more likely that they distinguish ObamaCare from Wickard by saying that in Wickard they regulated Wickard only after Wickard engaged in commerce by growing a crop whereas in ObamaCare the Congress is mandating that all adults engage in commerce at the government’s behest. It would be as if Congress had mandated that Wickard grow the crop against his will.

        Forced sales is simply not “regulation” by any precedent even among all the bad precedents under the commerce clause. But if J. Kennedy wants to be impose more liberalism, he could easily resort to the illogic you describe in your diary to do so. 5 votes makes law with a “living” Constitution. reason often gets checked at the door of the courthouse.

        im (less)h (legal)o…smile

        And Pilgrim, this poor man can tell you that poverty has prevented me from engaging in health industry commerce for many years at a time!

        • NeoKong

          It all comes down to one guy.
          Kennedy.

          We know we already have four justices,Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan and Breyer who have reputations for making decision based on what they think is fair rather than what is based on actual law.
          Sotomayor’s ruling on Ricci v. DeStefano where she ruled that New Haven Connecticut had to throw out the results of a civil service exam because no black applicants had passed it is an example.
          It was overturned by SCOTUS.
          She was wrong wrong wrong.

          She made her decision based on outcome and not on law.
          Plus we have Kagan who helped craft Obamacare.
          These two cast their vote before they even got on the court.
          On top of that there is Ginsburg who was recently in Egypt telling the Muslim Brotherhood not to model their constitution after the U.S. which she clearly does not believe in plus today she was coaching the govt. attorney Verilli on what to say.

          If you are going to have justices making decisions based on the greater good or what they think is fair then why even bother to put lawyers on the court….?

          And what will Kennedy do….?
          Will he follow the Constitution or will he try to rescue all the poor people who have no insurance because he believes their plight outweighs the law?

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Our system has always relied upon judicial restraint, ie character in at least a majority of the court. Life is a bitch and then you die! smile

  • Lynn Otting

    I don’t see how the gov’t can compel an insurance company to provide something without knowing the exact cost to the insurance company.What if the regulations cause the providers to go bankrupt, then what happends? However, I aI am not certain this is even a part of the argument , or else insurance companies would be the plaintiff.

    I do know the Fourth Amendment is an Amendment in name only because the SC has chipped away these rights until they are non existent.

  • Seedyrom

    a law that requires medical treatment whether a person can pay or not. All they have to do is make it to the ER.

    They don’t have as much control over our lives as you think because neither the cops nor zoning ordinance officers have ever walked on my property and I do lots that some frown upon. Shooting skeet, loud music and I built a pool without a permit. I live in the city but its a section where people have a lot in common and the cops, well they know us because we hold fund raisers and invite them to parties. Shotguns aren’t a big deal around here.

    I get the message though but I don’t see SCOTUS stacked 5/4 conservative leaning saying gov can force us to buy something that they can’t demonstrate we need.

    As well, they can’t force us to pay maternity care fees because that too is unconstitutional. Since when can gov make us pay for a service we’ll never need unless we want kids and want someone else to subsidize the cost? What about retirees, single men, gays and lesbians who may not want kids? Remember these wackos have passed state bills giving unions the right to offer Cosmetic Surgery insurance coverage. Tax, spend and pretend its going to work out.

    We’re going to see more companies going offshore. Bain Capital will see business booming if BOCare is legal.

    • NeoKong

      There would be a backhoe in your yard filling that pool in and you would be paying a huge fine.
      I’m not kidding.
      You would be a criminal.
      The zoning board is crazy.
      They would be throwing eggs at your house.

      As far as the other thing goes, Obamacare is designed to eliminate people using the ER for primary care. Many people go in for things that are not emergencies.
      You may not participate much but eventually you will participate.
      Can the govt. regulate that participation…?

      • Seedyrom

        Fortunately people don’t get in their neighbors faces and the city is conservative run.

        As for participation, we have health savings accounts and private insurance which are superior and few gov documents. Participation means I am a number not a man. I’m a man not a number. Liberals don’t comprehend that no more than they comprehend massive debt numbers. Obamacare seals the deal for the Health Care Industrial Complex. Obama is no Truman!

  • Common_Cents

    Let’s all drop the facade of SCOTUS being able to separate their biases. What bunch of crap. Yeah their reasoning has to be well founded and tight, Umm except scotus like Oconnor saying affirmative action is constitutional for a period of time. WTF? how is something constitutional for a period of time? It either is, or it isn’t.

    It was reported that Kennedy was tough on the govt today, but then left the door open saying health care might be some special exception? boom, there you go. Was Kennedy putting on a show of being tough? Or was is it real scrutiny?