Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama might have a Supreme Court majority on the health care law (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's the argument that supporters make (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    But it is an open question.  No Commerce Clause case discusses regulation of activity that a person will, at some undefined point in the future, engage in.

    (And, one hole in that theory is that, while people simply decide to not to insure that doesn't mean they've made the decision as using an emergency room without paying.  For the vast, vast, vast majority, declining health insurance means they can't pay if something catastrophic happens.  But a lot of 20 somethings economically would be better off self-financing everything because (unless there's a catastrophic accident) for them, health insurance is often more expensive than the health care they actually consume.  And for a small, small, small minority of uber rich, they can pay for their health care outright even without insurance.  Your theory is that this law forces them all to buy health insurance under the assumption that they will use the health care system AND be unable to pay for what they use -- which is not necessarily true for everybody.)  

    •  The "hole" in the argument (0+ / 0-)

      is one about policy fairness, not constitutionality.  

      Besides, the commerce clause by its own terms says literally nothing about activity, and the necessary and proper clause even less, and that's assuming there is "inactivity," or that "activity" is actually equivalent to "reasoned, considered choice."

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 11:56:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site