Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

[c1ue]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Ok, may I make you aware of at least one privately run fire department? My county is mostly rural. The south end has a couple of cities, so has a public fire department to serve them. Here on the north end, nothing. So....we have our own volunteer department with two trucks (one a 6x6 tanker, the other a pumper. One call gets them notified and the good citizens drop their jobs and arrive in the best manner conditions allow.
Income is from fund raising (some of the best barbequed brisket anywhere) and donations. It works for us.

It works for you because there isn't competition.

In the bad old days - New York for example in the 1800s - there were 'volunteer' and 'for profit' firefighting companies.

So you would see things like one fire fighting company physically assaulting another to prevent it from impinging on the first's turf.

Or a fire fighting company standing by and watching a single house burn because it hadn't paid its 'taxes'.

There are reasons why fire fighting should be a common public service:

1) A single house burning endangers the others around it
2) A single service can best provide seamless coverage
3) The cost averaged out is small for individuals, but lack of such service leads to periodic catastrophic costs

Note that the above can also be provided by a single monopolistic for profit service - but then you get the rentier action.

Which is exactly what Dr. Michael Hudson is speaking to.

[DSpencer]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Moronic. That's like saying you can't force people to pay for school, fire protection, police, etc.

In your opinion, is there any limitation to this line of thinking. Can the federal government mandate:

1. That everyone buy 5 gallons of orange juice each month.
2. That everyone pay to have my air ducts cleaned each month.
3. That everyone hire a personal trainer.
4. That nobody ever smokes tobacco or drinks alcohol.
5. That nobody may ever buy cookies or soft drinks.
6. That everyone graduates medical school.

I'm not asking whether these are good or practical suggestions. Just if you believe they would be constitutional.

[zoog]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

It works for you because there isn't competition.

In the bad old days - New York for example in the 1800s - there were 'volunteer' and 'for profit' firefighting companies.

So you would see things like one fire fighting company physically assaulting another to prevent it from impinging on the first's turf.

Or a fire fighting company standing by and watching a single house burn because it hadn't paid its 'taxes'.

There are reasons why fire fighting should be a common public service:

1) A single house burning endangers the others around it
2) A single service can best provide seamless coverage
3) The cost averaged out is small for individuals, but lack of such service leads to periodic catastrophic costs

Note that the above can also be provided by a single monopolistic for profit service - but then you get the rentier action.

Which is exactly what Dr. Michael Hudson is speaking to.

For a fictional account of an extreme case of privatized emergency services, read Jennifer Government (a dark comedy about corporate power run amok). After seeing a teenager shot in the mall, a character calls 911 to get an ambulance. They will not send an ambulance, however, unless he gives them his credit card number to bill to in advance.

[zoog]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

wasn't the commerce clause used to force US persons to STOP buying marijuana? IIRC it was clear to everyone the commerce clause could NOT be used for that (like it had not been used to do the same thing to alcohol earlier) but the USupremes applied it that way anyway ... extending federal power far, FAR ahead of any intent. My understanding anyway ... one of my US friends can correct me.

but today it can't be used to force US persons to START buying stuff? A differentially, vanishingly, infinitessimally small extension of federal power, compared to the earlier decision?

Essentially, yes. Gonzales vs Raich in 2005: Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes. However it is worth noting that the Controlled Substances Act does not exempt medical use of marijuana, so the fight was over whether federal agents acting under that act could continue to raid California medical marijuana operations even though California had legalized it.

In 2003 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that this was an unconstitutional extension of the Commerce Clause. But the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

With four years to go, a lot can happen. Just because one judge has ruled the buy-insurance-or-pay-fine unconstitutional doesn't mean it will be shot down in the end. It seems pretty certain that this will head to the Supreme Court, but their decision will be based on politics, as always.

Some people believe the Supreme Court has become corrupted only in relatively recent times. About three years ago on PBS there was a four-part series about the history of the Supreme Court. My take-away was that it started out as a relatively powerless and ill-defined entity, but under the direction of a few strong characters quickly rose to an institution of considerable power, with their decisions swinging wildly from one partisan side to another.

[Mashuri]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

In the bad old days - New York for example in the 1800s - there were 'volunteer' and 'for profit' firefighting companies.

They were very far from private and held very close ties to NY's politicians for protection and support. At best, the "private" NY firefighting companies were fascist.

[c1ue]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

They were very far from private and held very close ties to NY's politicians for protection and support. At best, the "private" NY firefighting companies were fascist.

And why is this surprising? Money = power

[Mashuri]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

And why is this surprising? Money = power

Nothing surprising -- I'm just pointing out that what you referred to as private actually was not. Money = economic power. Economic power can be used to purchase political power (the power of coercion) if it's available. The latter power is where corruption flourishes.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Here in North America, I know of no jurisdiction where one is not compelled by state law or provincial law to have liability insurance on their car. And each jurisdiction compels licensing and testing of drivers, also driver health checks, vehicle safety inspections, and possible blood or breath checks.

I am not a lawyer, just the slow-learner here, but if the government can mandate auto liability insurance, the government can mandate that the individual buy health insurance.

What is the clear and compelling reason for government to compel the individual to do something? The answer is that healthcare providers are required to give you care, in case of emergency. And what happens in America: the deadbeats and free-loaders show-up in emergency rooms with zero or bogus coverage. And then they expect a free-ride for treatment, sticking the doctor or hospital or clinic with all costs.

The rightwing in America is way off-base on this issue. Socialized-medicine should have come to America seventy-years ago, during the New Deal of FDR.

[don]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Here in North America, I know of no jurisdiction where one is not compelled by state law or provincial law to have liability insurance on their car. And each jurisdiction compels licensing and testing of drivers, also driver health checks, vehicle safety inspections, and possible blood or breath checks.

I am not a lawyer, just the slow-learner here, but if the government can mandate auto liability insurance, the government can mandate that the individual buy health insurance.

That's rationalized by the credo that driving is a privileged, not a right or a life necessity, by implication. The latter is debatable in many suburban environments. Getting sick isn't a privilege, nor is it in many cases a choice. The analogy is bullshit. Keep in mind, FIRE is the entity that brings us privatized water and air.

[tmicou]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Here in North America, I know of no jurisdiction where one is not compelled by state law or provincial law to have liability insurance on their car. And each jurisdiction compels licensing and testing of drivers, also driver health checks, vehicle safety inspections, and possible blood or breath checks.

I am not a lawyer, just the slow-learner here, but if the government can mandate auto liability insurance, the government can mandate that the individual buy health insurance.

What is the clear and compelling reason for government to compel the individual to do something? The answer is that healthcare providers are required to give you care, in case of emergency. And what happens in America: the deadbeats and free-loaders show-up in emergency rooms with zero or bogus coverage. And then they expect a free-ride for treatment, sticking the doctor or hospital or clinic with all costs.

The rightwing in America is way off-base on this issue. Socialized-medicine should have come to America seventy-years ago, during the New Deal of FDR.

You may know of no jurisdiction in North America where one is not compelled by **State or provincial*** law...

True enough, because those powers are relegated to the states. Here in Massachusetts, we are also compelled to buy Health Insurance, which is perfectly constitutional. But there are no ***FEDERAL*** laws requiring insurance, because constitutionally, these powers are relegated to the states or to the people. See the 10th amendment, which the framers understood that a federal government with too much power would surely become corrupt and inefficient:

TENTH AMENDMENT to the US Constitution: 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.

[c1ue]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Nothing surprising -- I'm just pointing out that what you referred to as private actually was not. Money = economic power. Economic power can be used to purchase political power (the power of coercion) if it's available. The latter power is where corruption flourishes.

I think you're confusing a member of government with the government itself.

Simply because say a Senator owns a fire fighting company, does not mean the government owns the fire fighting company - unless the government passes laws saying that specific private sector fire fighting company is the only one that can operate.

As for money, economic power, and political power - again you'd need to demonstrate that it was the latter leading to the former, as opposed to the reverse, in order to illustrate your point.

And then show that it was somehow unique as opposed to some rich guy just being involved in everything because of him being a locus of money and influence.

For example: clearly Bill Clinton converted political power to economic power. Before being President, he was one of the upper middle class.

Afterwards, bingo!

Equally so Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are examples of economic power not translating into political power.

[Ghent12]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

Here in North America, I know of no jurisdiction where one is not compelled by state law or provincial law to have liability insurance on their car. And each jurisdiction compels licensing and testing of drivers, also driver health checks, vehicle safety inspections, and possible blood or breath checks.

I am not a lawyer, just the slow-learner here, but if the government can mandate auto liability insurance, the government can mandate that the individual buy health insurance.

What is the clear and compelling reason for government to compel the individual to do something? The answer is that healthcare providers are required to give you care, in case of emergency. And what happens in America: the deadbeats and free-loaders show-up in emergency rooms with zero or bogus coverage. And then they expect a free-ride for treatment, sticking the doctor or hospital or clinic with all costs.

The rightwing in America is way off-base on this issue. Socialized-medicine should have come to America seventy-years ago, during the New Deal of FDR.

The thin red line is that you are not required to purchase auto insurance because you can and many do live without a personally-owned vehicle. An American, barring some change in laws, can go his/her entire life without being forced to buy any commercial product by the government. Until now. What's next? What's next "for the common good" of society?

Government and power begets government and power! Why can't people understand this basic principle? Imagine giving this principle to the Federal government, that it's okay to force us sheeple to buy things "for our own good," or even as part of a complicated corporate bailout program (ObamaCare)--what's next? Has anyone thought of that? What happens when another Bush/Obama or worse, someone like Lyndon Johnson, Grant, Harding, or other overtly corrupt politician comes into office? What happens when the next Dick Cheney forces you to buy something from Halliburton?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

The thin red line is that you are not required to purchase auto insurance because you can and many do live without a personally-owned vehicle.

You can own a vehicle without having insurance. You can even drive it, on private property. You just can't operate it on public roads. Even that rule has exceptions. I legally operated a tractor on a major state highway (Route 22, the major route connecting New York City with Montreal prior to the Interstate going in), when I was nine or ten years old, without license or insurance or any other such paraphernalia. The highway happened to bisect my fathers farm, and it was legal for farmers and their kin and hired hands to operate their farm vehicles on highways crossing their land, without age constraints and without benefit of license or insurance.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

You may know of no jurisdiction in North America where one is not compelled by **State or provincial*** law...

True enough, because those powers are relegated to the states. Here in Massachusetts, we are also compelled to buy Health Insurance, which is perfectly constitutional. But there are no ***FEDERAL*** laws requiring insurance, because constitutionally, these powers are relegated to the states or to the people. See the 10th amendment, which the framers understood that a federal government with too much power would surely become corrupt and inefficient:

TENTH AMENDMENT to the US Constitution: 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.

Using the 10th Amendment, everything would be unconstitutional in America: including Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, Federal Deposit Insurance in banks and credit unions, maybe even child-labour laws and minimum-wage laws.

The rightwing has the WRONG issues! Totally wrong! Obamacare will survive in the Supreme Court.

The rightwing and the leftwing both should be arguing in favour of control of the Federal Reserve Bank by Congress, the audit of the Fed, the gold standard, in favour of free-trade, in favour of open-borders, multi-lingualism, multi-culturalism, the right to reasonable privacy in one's person, the right to teach without undue and unreasonable government interference, and helping to lower the cost-of-living of the common person.

In Canada, we want Parliament to control and to audit the Bank of Canada. We want a beaver buck backed by gold. We want more free-trade, not less. Basically, we want the same issues. Especially, we want government to help people and lower our cost-of-living.... Same issues!

In Mexico, probably it is the same issues there, too. Mexican truckers should be driving on American and Canadian roads.

In the UK, probably the same issues. In Europe, probably the same issues.

[Mashuri]

Re: Obamacare facing legal challenges, one provision possibly unconstitutional

I think you're confusing a member of government with the government itself.

Not sure what you mean here but government itself is only an imaginary entity, consisting in reality of individuals who are members.

Simply because say a Senator owns a fire fighting company, does not mean the government owns the fire fighting company - unless the government passes laws saying that specific private sector fire fighting company is the only one that can operate.

Ownership or, more specifically, possession is demonstrated by control. If a member or members of government have control over the fire fighting business (who can become fire fighters, how they can go about fighting fires, how they are funded, etc) then government effectively owns the fire fighting company. The very fact that they are tax funded means they are government controlled. I sure as hell can't start my own private competing fire fighting company here in Los Angeles.

As for money, economic power, and political power - again you'd need to demonstrate that it was the latter leading to the former, as opposed to the reverse, in order to illustrate your point.

I'm not trying to establish causation but mainly making a distinction between the two. Exercising economic power is still a mutually agreed upon transaction between parties while exercising political power is one party forcing another to do its will. I have a problem with the latter but not the former.

And then show that it was somehow unique as opposed to some rich guy just being involved in everything because of him being a locus of money and influence.

For example: clearly Bill Clinton converted political power to economic power. Before being President, he was one of the upper middle class.

Afterwards, bingo!

See above.

Equally so Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are examples of economic power not translating into political power.

Where did I say, or even insinuate, that every attempt to convert economic power into political power succeeds?