Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court, Affordable Care Act: Is the mandate constitutional? (372 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How about this: (0+ / 0-)

    When did "regulate" come to mean "forced to participate"?

    The mandate is not about regulating interstate commerce.
    It's about forcing people to participate.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 07:02:59 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Finally (4+ / 0-)

      the inactivty/activity argument.

      It took you numerous comment to finally get where you should have started.

      What of the Necessary and Proper Clause?

      •  Yup: "necessary and proper" is the implementation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        ... of the Congressional powers described immediately before that phrase. It is a huge - and understandable - grant of authority: "... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers ..."

        Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

        by TRPChicago on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 07:12:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There's nothing new in "forced to participate." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      We'll agree some legislation that does that is a lousy idea, but not all legislation.

      Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

      by TRPChicago on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 07:07:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  1942. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      Yup, 70 years ago.  If you doubt it, I suggest you read up on Wickard v. Fillburn.

      Has the past 70 years seen a "parade of horribles" due to this expansive view of the Commerce Clause?  I think not.

      Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

      by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 07:11:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're already participating. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kareylou, uffdalib, Clem Yeobright

      The ACA just makes sure that you don't try to game the system.

      Unless of course, you will never need healthcare - and since I can all but promise you that you will, I'm unsympathetic to your argument.

      You can skip the requirement to carry collision by not driving - but you absolutely cannot skip participating in the health care system.  If the government can require banks to maintain a certain level of capitalization, they can require that you maintain a liquidity hedge against catastrophic illness.

      Your "promise" that you won't get sick, or that you'll just die quietly if you do is not enforceable, so the rest of us (who will end up paying for your inevitable failure) have decided that you WILL carry the hedge.  So suck it up - I'm tired of this fantasy that you're just going to drop out of modern medical care.

      •  My question to those folks (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Were you born in a hospital? Well then too late.
        Besides which, don't I have a right not to live in a society where we step over those writhing on the sidewalks after a heart attack, or driving over bodies of those run down in the streets because they have the special bracelet, or whatever would indicate that they opted out of modern medicine?
        This is not hyperbole. Either these people will be treated, and someone will pay for it, or we are going to let them lie around and perhaps die untreated.
        Time and chance happen to us all. Some people just do not want to accept that.  

        To keep our faces turned toward change, and behave as free spirits in the presence of fate--that is strength undefeatable. (Helen Keller)

        by kareylou on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 07:52:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  isnt regulation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      pretty much the definition of force?

      OSHA "forces" people to follow certain practices.

      Social Security "forces" people to pay a tax that the government then invests/pools to provide for your retirement.

      Can you name me a regulation that doesn't "force" someone to do something?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site