Is Universal Health Care Constitutional?

[iNow]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/10/health-insurance-mandate-upheld/

 

A federal judge in Detroit, in a broad ruling upholding Congress’s power to require all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, decided Thursday that the mandate is necessary to prevent the “extinction” of the nation’s entire health care insurance market. U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh said the requirement was well within Congress’s power to regulate commerce among the states. The decision is the first by a federal court to rule directly on the constitutionality of the buy-or-be-penalized provision of the sweeping new health care reform law.

 

<...>

 

The ruling came in the case of Thomas More Law Center, et al., v. Obama (District Court docket 10-11156) in the Eastern District of Michigan. That lawsuit is one of a lengthy list of court challenges to several parts of the new health care law. But the provision requiring everyone to have a health policy by the year 2014 was clearly the most visible part of the package for most Americans, and it has been subjected to the most energetic challenge. The key to most of the challenges is that refusing to buy health insurance is not activity, but inactivity, and Congress has never had the power to order people to engage in economic inactivity.

 

But Judge Creeh refused to accept that view of what the insurance mandate is. “Far from ‘inactivity,’” the judge wrote, by choosing to forgo insurance [the challengers] are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars, $43 billion in 2008, onto other market participants.”

[jackson33]

A federal judge in Detroit, in a broad ruling upholding Congress’s power to require all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, decided Thursday that the mandate is necessary to prevent the “extinction” of the nation’s entire health care insurance market. [/Quote]

 

Please tell me the high lighted actually makes any sense. If any industry in the future is subject to extinction, Horse and Buggies, then the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has the right to charge a penalty on any person that does not buy a buggy, assuming there is one Company actually making buggies, like say for the Amish!!! I see appeal all over this case, but as the article mentioned, there are plenty of other cases pending and it will be up to SCOTUS, probably late 2011 to bring some sense to this issue. We certainly can't have the Federal dictating purchases of any product and I won't begin to estimate the cost of enforcing such actions, think they (FBI) are hiring 10k agents for this purpose and that minor cost (est 20B$/year, excluding court cost) is not significant, or is it....

 

It is interesting how many of bascule's older threads are still relevant today.

[swansont]

Please tell me the high lighted actually makes any sense. If any industry in the future is subject to extinction, Horse and Buggies, then the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has the right to charge a penalty on any person that does not buy a buggy, assuming there is one Company actually making buggies, like say for the Amish!!! I see appeal all over this case, but as the article mentioned, there are plenty of other cases pending and it will be up to SCOTUS, probably late 2011 to bring some sense to this issue. We certainly can't have the Federal dictating purchases of any product and I won't begin to estimate the cost of enforcing such actions, think they (FBI) are hiring 10k agents for this purpose and that minor cost (est 20B$/year, excluding court cost) is not significant, or is it....

 

 

You appear to be addressing the quote rather than the argument that prompted it. The reference to "extinction" is not in the context of an obsolete product. You should read the entire scotus blog article using the link iNow provided.

[jackson33]

swansont; The quote is what not only caught my attention, but rather disgust me. However if you wish to explore further, I'll offer you the following;

 

 

The attorney’s general suit argues tht the federal government can’t force people to buy a product merely because they are United States citizens. Government lawyer, of course, say that the power granted to the government under the commerce clause of the United States Constitution has held for over 200 years, during which, male citizens were required to purchase muskets and ammunition.[/Quote]

 

http://aforgottenman.wordpress.com/

 

 

In large part the Obama Legal Eagles, won this case based on the use of the "Commerce Clause" in my opinion for non relevant purposes.

 

Basically firearm regulation stems well back into colonial days, around 1740, for far different purposes and any orders based on the on the commerce clause, to purchase muskets and/or ammunition were directed at Malitia, not the general public, Obamacare is...

 

 

If your interested in this, I am not, here is a 23 page pdf "Colonial Fire Arms Regulation" which has been configured into the Commerce Clause.

 

http://www.saf.org/journal/16/ColonialFirearmRegulation.pdf

 

Here is the complete 20 page, Judge Steeh decision. I will not argue the case and feel it will easily be shot down on appeal. If not we're in a whole heap of trouble as National Debt and the consequences, could possibly have your 401's in sight.

 

http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/Healthcare10-07-10ORDERDENYINGPLAINTIFFSMOTIO.pdf