Posted on 03/27/2012 1:02:34 PM PDT by Semper911
Without the individual mandate, if they enforce the rest of ObamaCare, the health insurance industry will not collapse, nor will it implode. It will evaporate. Gone in thirty seconds.
I think obama rushed the process because his re-election hopes are dim...he is going to run against *evil* healthcare-stealing republicans. Above all, he wants to be in power and have approval from the people. He is a narcissist afterall.
If the mandate is severed from the rest of it, Obama could just tell Congress to come up with a new source of funding if they want to balance the costs and that he’ll veto any attempt to repeal any other part of the law. Then we’d have to see if we have enough votes to override the veto.
I actually think a federal individual mandate would be very hard to uphold, even for some of the more liberal judges.
A state mandate to buy a product (such as auto insurance) is a different matter, because it protects that state from expenses, the same of which could be said of state-mandated health insurance. But this is also because an individual state does not contemplate becoming the sole provider of that product, which is clearly the aim of Obamacare. So there are mandates and there are mandates, but I think most rational judges will have to find that this one exceeds the permitted scope of federal action.
Reading the transcripts, the gummint got beat up pretty bad...
They need Obamacare!!
;-)
Milli Verrilli, just lip-synching the liberal BS!
Pretty much every analysis today I’ve seen or heard has confirmed what this article is stating including Jay Sekulow whom I respect very much.
What is “Scouts blog” and why should I care about their outlier position?
Let’s hope this is the firsst of MANY “trainwrecks” for Obamacare, its mandates and death penalties......and for its AUTHOR.
It might hurt Romney in the primaries even more also.
June is when the actual decision is released...
More to the point, the headlines then will scream that the cost is double without the now-overturned individual mandate.
Mittens could close out Bobo then and there by having a speech ready in which he admits Romneycare was flawed/Obamacare was unconstitutional and Congress must repeal/properly, the states are incubators, not the fed/how do we properly engage the real problem, extending care to the 24 mill who don't have it-won't get it-too stupid to care, and are clogging up our emergency rooms for the rest of us.
This mandate to buy is the worst attack on personal freedom since slavery.
Forget all the other words being used. It says the government can “order” you around instead of just manipulate you around. They tax whiskey, and it affects your buying. They tax your income and then go buy things with the money you wouldn’t otherwise have bought.
With this, though, they issue and order and tell you to go down to the neighborhood store and buy 6 of these and 5 of those.
It opens the door for the government to issue individual, particularized orders.
Disneyworld is going under...you are ordered to attend disney this year.
GMC is hurting...you are ordered to buy a Volt.
I think you have a very good point.
If Obamacare is sustained by the Supremes then in November, many people will be angry and vote against it by voting against Obama.
Where is that incentive if the Supremes strike it down?
I have the same, gnawing feeling, too.
I pray we're both wrong and that the USSC preserves and defends our Constitution and overturns this garbage.
“Where is that incentive if the Supremes strike it down?”
1. Creeping socialism
2. $4.00+ gas
3. High unemployment
4. Inflation
5. Racial demagoguery
6. Afghan war
You want more?
“You can’t use a ‘tax’ as a penalty”
I’m wondering how far that goes.
How about taxes designed to discourage participation in otherwise lawful commerce? The $200 NFA transfer tax in particular, intended to dissuade people from silencers, short shotguns, and other fringe firearms: it doesn’t bring in any appreciable revenue (like liquor taxes do), it exists for the sole purpose of discouragement akin to a poll tax.
This “individual mandate” case will draw a line; will be interesting to see how that can be leveraged for other freedoms.
I like your reply.... buT what majority
In debating, it is often the case that one must defend a proposition that one does not really believe in. Lawyers do this all the time.
Take, for instance, the position of being the defense lawyer of a criminal whom one privily knows is flat-out guilty, but under the law deserves the best defense possible; so that when found guilty, it will not be for lack of sloppy lawyering.
Could it be that Kagan, though as a condition of employment, and thus required to prepare the case law for Obamacare, really as a Justice cannot support it under the Constitution, and hence will not recuse herself on this??
One never knows until the final verdict is returned.
Look at other appointments: Warren (Eisenhower, school prayer, etc.), Blackmun (Nixon, R. v. W.), Souter (G. H. W. Bush, for abortion, etc liberal), Clarence (G. H. W. B., solid constructionist!), Obama (Kagan, ?????).
One might hope for a better result than anticipated --- but, ??
From Wiki: "In 1996, future Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that the O'Brien court did not appear to be concerned whether the law as enacted or enforced 'matched, or even resembled' the asserted government interest of stopping draft resistance protests. Kagan noted that the law prohibiting the destruction of the draft card 'interfered' with only one point of view: that of the anti-war protester. She allowed as how a successful challenge to O'Brien might come from focusing on such skewed constraints."
Being a little even-handed, Kagan's preparation for the judiciary is formidable in both pragmatic and academic efforts. Who knows?
If individuals are forced to buy healthcare where does it stop?
Imagine the government auditing neighborhoods for old and energy inefficient windows. Afterall, everyone needs energy for their home. Why can’t the government then tax folks for wasting energy if they don’t have the best windows available?
Same with cars. Everyone driving a gas-guzzler is causing a higher demand for energy and increased costs that are passed on to everyone. Tax folks driving a car that doesn’t meet minimum mileage standards.
In fact, doesn’t everyone need a car in this country? Tax everyone who doesn’t have a car. Folks that live in rural areas all need cars. Taxing folks who live in a city and don’t need a car will help offset the cost of getting a car to poor folks in rural areas. Another benefit would be it would help the auto industry.
We keep hearing that EDUCATION is an absolute necessity. Tax every parent that does not send there kid to a 4 year college/University. Many kids that do not have a college degree end up being deadbeats(OWS) and are a drag on society. Tax the people who don’t want to go to college to help pay for the kids who do want to go to college. Hold on!, you say. Many folks who want to go to college can’t afford to go. I suggest a tax for a failure to prepare adequately for a childs education. Hold on!, you say again. I did save enough for ONE child to go to college. The problem is I have 3 children. Okay. We will then tax you for having more kids than you can afford.
You could go on and on.
They don’t plan to audit all neighborhoods, just the homes that are for sale, forcing the sellers to upgrade not only the windows, but the heating systems and appliances, as well. I believe it was part of the cap and trade bill that did not pass, but you can be sure that Obama (and Romney, too) would bring it back if they get an opening.
Even a good lawyer cannot defend the indefensible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.