Health Mandate Unconstitutional?

[ivan]

to use the word "really" implies the authors actually thought about the idea at all - pretty certain universal healthcare wasn't on the radar back in the 1780s

 

healthcare is necessary in order to exist - sure, a man theoritically can say "i'm never going to the doctor so i'm not paying a damn cent for healthcare," but as soon as he's lopped a finger off w/ a chain-saw he'll still end up in the ER, and the ER is required by the government to give him service, right?

 

I think that they realized that they couldn't predict the future, but one of the central purposes, if not the central purpose, of the document was to enumerate what the Federal government had the power to do and what it didn't.

 

If I'm not mistaken, when the champions of the individual mandate were looking for the constitutional basis for the power to force people to buy health insurance have concluded that they'd found it in the commerce clause. I'm not convinced that it does, and I think that's the basis on which the constitutionality of the law is being challenged.

 

Just to flesh out your argument a bit more - what about the case of the guy who has enough money to self insure?

no doubt you've read locke, steeped in the classics as your are - i for one disagree w/ the notion of "natural rights" - there is no creator, we are all savages in the end, and we have no rights beyond our ability to kill the monkeys around us w/ sharp sticks - so there is, in the grand sense, no right to healthcare anymore than a right to life in general

 

of course my grand philosophy is irrelvant - out of necessity socities must have rules in order to survive, and writing them down and sticking to the spirit, if not the letter, of them is important - i don't get real excited about what exactly the founders intended - they were a starting pt to generally stick to, but i have no slavish devotion to them

 

at any rate, the commerce clause was clearly used by proponents of the PPACt b/c historically that clause has been useful in expanding the role of the government - philosophically i have no problem w/ a big government, as this conservative argument taht it should be just small enough to fit into our bedrooms seems uber-stupid to me - the consitutional basis for the law is important, but in the end its usually just a goddamn lawyers wank-fest game in that regard - i have no problem w/ the man being heavily involved in the healthcare arena so long as the end result isn't unpleasant for me personally

 

don't understand your question re: the "guy cuts his finger off" scenario

[Fairweather]

There are thousands of examples of corporate personhood being used to trump civil rights and it is testimony to your tone deafness that you need an example.

 

Of course, since we were mentioning it, corporations being allowed to buy there favorite politician is a full frontal assault on voting rights.

 

But, for an additional example, what about the right to grow up without commercialism and the constant infringement of its marketeering in the lives of children. Come on JayB, what about the right to grow up without commercial propaganda?

 

[j_b]

if every example has to fit the definitions used by Bush's corporatist supreme court, I am afraid we will not get very far.

[j_b]

i for one disagree w/ the notion of "natural rights" - there is no creator, we are all savages in the end, and we have no rights beyond our ability to kill the monkeys around us w/ sharp sticks - so there is, in the grand sense, no right to healthcare anymore than a right to life in general

 

As the barbarians are showing us once again there are no rights without social contract.

[JayB]

to use the word "really" implies the authors actually thought about the idea at all - pretty certain universal healthcare wasn't on the radar back in the 1780s

 

healthcare is necessary in order to exist - sure, a man theoritically can say "i'm never going to the doctor so i'm not paying a damn cent for healthcare," but as soon as he's lopped a finger off w/ a chain-saw he'll still end up in the ER, and the ER is required by the government to give him service, right?

 

I think that they realized that they couldn't predict the future, but one of the central purposes, if not the central purpose, of the document was to enumerate what the Federal government had the power to do and what it didn't.

 

If I'm not mistaken, when the champions of the individual mandate were looking for the constitutional basis for the power to force people to buy health insurance have concluded that they'd found it in the commerce clause. I'm not convinced that it does, and I think that's the basis on which the constitutionality of the law is being challenged.

 

Just to flesh out your argument a bit more - what about the case of the guy who has enough money to self insure?

no doubt you've read locke, steeped in the classics as your are - i for one disagree w/ the notion of "natural rights" - there is no creator, we are all savages in the end, and we have no rights beyond our ability to kill the monkeys around us w/ sharp sticks - so there is, in the grand sense, no right to healthcare anymore than a right to life in general

 

of course my grand philosophy is irrelvant - out of necessity socities must have rules in order to survive, and writing them down and sticking to the spirit, if not the letter, of them is important - i don't get real excited about what exactly the founders intended - they were a starting pt to generally stick to, but i have no slavish devotion to them

 

at any rate, the commerce clause was clearly used by proponents of the PPACt b/c historically that clause has been useful in expanding the role of the government - philosophically i have no problem w/ a big government, as this conservative argument taht it should be just small enough to fit into our bedrooms seems uber-stupid to me - the consitutional basis for the law is important, but in the end its usually just a goddamn lawyers wank-fest game in that regard - i have no problem w/ the man being heavily involved in the healthcare arena so long as the end result isn't unpleasant for me personally

 

don't understand your question re: the "guy cuts his finger off" scenario

 

"Big government" is usually composed of two elements - size and scope. You could conceivably employ millions of people weaving the cloth that the currency is printed on by hand, replace printing with hand-painting, etc without increasing the scope of government beyond the limits proscribed by the Constitution.

 

If you are open to the government expanding the scope of it's powers solely on the basis of some practical expediency there's little or no basis upon which you can draw any firm limits to what the government can or cannot do. The founders couldn't see into the future but they could see well into the past and find virtually limitless examples of governments using any pretext that they could muster to expand the scope of their rule - which is precisely the reason why they saw fit to make the Constitution difficult to amend. Difficult - but not impossible.

 

The folks who wanted a national income tax were able to secure that power via a Constitutional amendment. Why not go that route if you're convinced that forcing people to buy health insurance is a legitimate function of government, rather than distorting an existing power in such a way as to render it virtually limitless?

 

Your argument for the mandate via the "finger-guy" was that he'd be forcing everyone else to pay for his care if he never bought insurance - no? Clearly not true of anyone who can pay for all of the care they need out of pocket. It'd be an expensive waste of money that'd piss the people paying for it off - but not an example of the government overstepping it's constitutionally defined bounds.

 

Seems like the imposing costs on others argument would also supply a pretext for the state imposing sanctions on fat people who impact everyone else with their elevated medical costs, etc, etc, etc.

[JayB]

Also - not sure how familiar you are with English Common Law - but the notion of natural rights has more to it than just serving as a handy rhetorical device for keeping power of the state in check.

 

My understanding (dim and perhaps not entirely correct) is that in the early days - probably contemporaneous with your favorite epic poem - judges were sent hither and yon to adjudicate disputes. More often than not there was no written body of rules to refer to - so part of the judge's job was to determine what the local norms (that both parties would have understood before going into the deal) were. That ruling and a gajillion others were recorded, used as references when dealing with similar cases - and over time all of the rulings amalgamated into "The Law."

 

Part of what the folks going on about natural rights were referring to was this body of law that hadn't been created from scratch via some decree, or designed by any single intelligence and imposed on everyone - but that had evolved on their own directly out of the manner in which people lived. They then went on to argue that since "The Law" hadn't been created by the will of any particular man or discrete body of men - there was no legal basis by which any man or group of men could revoke them at will either.

 

Lots of theological stuff, etc bundled into the natural rights doctrines - but there's the above basis that shaped the concept as well.

 

I think most of them were also of the mind that the folks in government could pass legislation that stipulated that you had to dye every third child green and there would indeed be a law that said so - but that anything so contrary to the way people actually lived, understood their rights, etc would never become the law of the land in any real sense.

 

 

[ivan]

learned plenty about common law and i like it, as its more flexible -obviously there's drawbacks - england's system is faster and easier, but of course has the occasional drawback of quickly becoming oppressive - plus they all kinda sound like queers

 

i can't pretend to understand the minutae of the hc-debate - my limited understanding is that controlling costs requires big pools, that everybody needs to be in, espeically healthy people, in order to get reasonable protection for the sick - if everyone is covered though, and you can't deny folks care, in theory everyone can wait until actually sick to get coverage, which fucks the whole system in the ass? if the finger-guy was going to have the money to pay for an injury 10 days from now, but waiting till then to pay causes others not to be able to be covered, but having the finger dude pay today for the injury then would allow that magic to happen, then surely that's reasonable. the spirit of the rules is what i care about, and the "promote the general welfare" bit of the preamble and the "right to life" part of the declaration are just fine. the elastic clause and the commerce clause in tandem work too.

[mattp]

Fairweather,

 

I answered your question straight on. You gonna tell us how you could support and defend Bush's "you're either with us or against us," his team's intimidation tactics, their promotion of domestic eavesdropping, torture, and all the rest of it but now think it is "thuggish" for a President to have criticized a Supreme Court ruling?

[ivan]

Fairweather,

 

I answered your question straight on. You gonna tell us how you could support and defend Bush's "you're either with us or against us," his team's intimidation tactics, their promotion of domestic eavesdropping, torture, and all the rest of it but now think it is "thuggish" for a President to have criticized a Supreme Court ruling?

dooood, don't you get it? like, obama almost made john roberts cry n' stuff! all bush did was fry some dumb ass a-rabs who have the audacity to be sitting on top of boss' oil!

[Fairweather]

Fairweather,

 

I answered your question straight on. You gonna tell us how you could support and defend Bush's "you're either with us or against us," his team's intimidation tactics, their promotion of domestic eavesdropping, torture, and all the rest of it but now think it is "thuggish" for a President to have criticized a Supreme Court ruling?

 

I see Bush Derangement Syndrome still holds you tightly in its smothering grasp. We've covered all of your topics repeatedly in conversations long passed, and I'm not sure there's anything new to explore. Your insatiable need to have the last word notwithstanding, I think it's best we leave things where they are.

[Hugh Conway]

woo fucking hoo!

[Hugh Conway]

seriuosly this shit is painful

[billcoe]

"Big government" is usually composed of two elements - size and scope. You could conceivably employ millions of people weaving the cloth that the currency is printed on by hand, replace printing with hand-painting, etc without increasing the scope of government beyond the limits proscribed by the Constitution.

 

If you are open to the government expanding the scope of it's powers solely on the basis of some practical expediency there's little or no basis upon which you can draw any firm limits to what the government can or cannot do. The founders couldn't see into the future but they could see well into the past and find virtually limitless examples of governments using any pretext that they could muster to expand the scope of their rule - which is precisely the reason why they saw fit to make the Constitution difficult to amend. Difficult - but not impossible.

 

The folks who wanted a national income tax were able to secure that power via a Constitutional amendment. Why not go that route if you're convinced that forcing people to buy health insurance is a legitimate function of government, rather than distorting an existing power in such a way as to render it virtually limitless?

 

Your argument for the mandate via the "finger-guy" was that he'd be forcing everyone else to pay for his care if he never bought insurance - no? Clearly not true of anyone who can pay for all of the care they need out of pocket. It'd be an expensive waste of money that'd piss the people paying for it off - but not an example of the government overstepping it's constitutionally defined bounds.

 

Seems like the imposing costs on others argument would also supply a pretext for the state imposing sanctions on fat people who impact everyone else with their elevated medical costs, etc, etc, etc.

[billcoe]

seriuosly this shit is painful

Well, you can see a doctor for that when it goes through,

[j_b]

How about indulging my tone-deafness and providing a concrete example or two?

 

If there are thousands it should be a snap.

 

Is "the right to grow up without commercial propoganda" a civil right with any basis in our legal system?

 

I already gave you examples but you want them to have a "basis in our legal system" as if the purpose of corporate personhood was anything other than to legally prevent us from holding corporations accountable for denying people's right to a clean environment, stable communities, etc .. In other words, corporate lawyers fix the law to suit your purpose, then you claim that the right to grow up without 24-7 commercial propaganda on public airwaves "has no basis in our legal system". And, to boot, you have the gall to pretend that legal fiction denying us the possibility to control our lives is to protect us from "big government".

[j_b]

I see Bush Derangement Syndrome still holds you tightly in its smothering grasp. We've covered all of your topics repeatedly in conversations long passed, and I'm not sure there's anything new to explore.

 

You are fully delusional if you think nobody has excellent reasons to keep confronting you with your total support of Bush's disastrous policies that brought us where we are today.

[JayB]

How about indulging my tone-deafness and providing a concrete example or two?

 

If there are thousands it should be a snap.

 

Is "the right to grow up without commercial propoganda" a civil right with any basis in our legal system?

 

I already gave you examples but you want them to have a "basis in our legal system" as if the purpose of corporate personhood was anything other than to legally prevent us from holding corporations accountable for denying people's right to a clean environment, stable communities, etc .. In other words, corporate lawyers fix the law to suit your purpose, then you claim that the right to grow up without 24-7 commercial propaganda on public airwaves "has no basis in our legal system". And, to boot, you have the gall to pretend that legal fiction denying us the possibility to control our lives is to protect us from "big government".

 

If something has no formal basis in our legal system - is it really a civil right?

 

Generally when there are thousands of people having a particular right that has some basis in law violated you'd expect it to generate at least one court case.

 

If you can't point to either law or legislation that recognizes a broadly defined right to a "childhood free of commercial propaganda, etc" then you are basically equating your pet-peeves/obsessions with real rights with a basis in law - no?

[j_b]

The demagogue latches onto the provocative example I gave because he wants to dismiss the much more obvious denial of civil rights during the buying of elections, polluting of our environment, etc .. all done under the legal fiction of corporate personhood.

[ivan]

 

Generally when there are thousands of people having a particular right that has some basis in law violated you'd expect it to generate at least one court case.

when in doubt, the 9th amendment is your friend!

[tvashtarkatena]

Aren't nearly all news media funded by advertising? Ban that, and you've got wholly owned corporate media and government run media. Hmmmm......

 

You can always turn Little Johnny's fucking PC/TV off.

 

Now there's a thought.

[j_b]

Turn Little Johnny's fucking PC/TV off? LOL and Little Johnny will spend all of his spare time at the neighbors?

 

Don't ban advertising. Tax it to fund commercial free media.

[tvashtarkatena]

It already is.

[j_b]

clearly not enough or we'd also have commercial free media.

[j_b]

Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights

[ivan]

clearly not enough or we'd also have commercial free media.

commercials make me insane - i see maybe 3 a year, and i certainly watch plenty of shit - it's not that hard to filter out, ya know?