E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Pete Williams
Today's ruling by a federal appeals court in Ohio, upholding the Obama health care law, marks the first time a Republican-appointed judge has found the most controversial part of the law constitutional.
The ruling by a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was 2-1 on the "individual mandate" -- the requirement that all Americans get health insurance. One of the judges voting to uphold it was Jeffrey Sutton, an appointee of George W. Bush and a former law clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia.
This brings to four the number of court decisions upholding the law. Two other courts have declared it unconstitutional on its long march to the Supreme Court.
UPDATE: In 1942, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the power to stop an Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filbert, from growing his own wheat. The court said then that his decision to grow his own, rather than buying wheat on the national market, affected interstate commerce, which Congress has the authority to regulate.
Today, the Sixth Circuit appeals court said the same logic applies to health insurance.
Opponents had argued that while Congress has broad authority to regulate economic activity, it has no authority over inactivity, such as a failure to buy insurance. But the appeals court said today that Congress is actually regulating the market of self-insurance for health care, in which people try to find some way to cover their costs other than by purchasing insurance.
But the court said self-insuring affects interstate commerce, by shifting the costs of the un-insured to people who have insurance, just as the wheat farmer affected interstate commerce by growing and consuming his own wheat instead of buying it on the national market.
Leave a Comment:
I might start a flame war, but providing emergency health care to illegals is in the best interest of the U.S. as national health and national security issues. Before you start hurling excrement, let me explain:
People coming into the U.S. legally are tested for infectious diseases and general health. It would be great if that was the only door in, but we don't live in a perfect world. The next plague that could wipe out a good percentage of our population will not be coming in through legal immigration. It WILL be coming in through other means. Pandemic diseases are not selective. They will affect the military, police, fire fighters, emergency personnel, etc... as well as others if they aren't vaccinated before being exposed. Even a small number of the people who are vaccinated will still get sick and some will die.
We need illegals who are sick to get treated before they spread illnesses through our communities. We also need to be able to report trends and new outbreaks to the Center for Disease Control so that serious outbreaks can be contained and handled locally instead of spreading like wildfire. I know that it's very hard to not deport the illegals that show up at an emergency room, but the fear of deportation will keep away the very people we need to be treating and testing for accurate reporting of infectious diseases. That's the crux of the national health and national security arguments.
Yes, strengthen the borders, fine businesses who aid in smuggling in illegals, pass immigration reform, and severely reduce the number of new illegals entering the country, but some will still get through whatever nets you place and our national health and our security are at stake if we refuse to treat them.
OK, you can throw the excrement now.
No, the crux of of why the government wants everyone to be insured is to insure that donors of huge sums of money (doctors/hospitals/insurance companies and execs w/insurance companies continue to get something back from their enormous donations for the politicians they have backed. The government has made it seem as though this about a national health/security problem. If that were actually true, they would be actually preventing people from entering this country illegaly and deporting those already here.
This should also be looked at as a government controlled system of stimulating our economy by forcing us to spend money. This should not be overlooked. The trouble is, the government will be paying out more money than they want anyone to realize because of the vast number of people (over 40 million as of today) living under the poverty level which entitles them to NOT pay for health insurance under the National Health care law. In essence, what we currently know as Medicare and Medicaid will bloat beyond current levels and further our debt.
So let me see if I have this right.....................................
Should everybody also then be forced to buy and operate a new motor vehicle?
Should everybody be forced to have a bank account?
Should everybody be forced to purchase products made in America by Americans?
Or is this truly about how much the insurance industry is into the pockets of our elected officials? First the insurers through the elected officials they backed make it unlawful to own and operate a motor vehicle without insurance. Now we all have to buy health insurance. I suppose we all have to have dental/eye and life insurance in the near future regardless of our ability to pay for it. Just make sure to send money to a particular insurance company so they can prosper even more than already do.
INTHE: You're not "forced" to pay taxes or anything like that, now are you, In the Middle???????????
If I want to remain living outside prison and/or paying enormous fines and penalties, YES, I am forced to pay taxes. Aren't you?
IN THE MIDDLE: So if you are "forced" to pay taxes for cover the cost of things we expect in a modern society, police & fire protection, public schools (which I'm sure the Right would like to privatize), a military, The FDA to ensure the food we eat won't kill us, the FAA to ensure that airlines actually bolt the wings on properly, than why should health care be any different??? You already pay for it. The cost of emergency room care is vastly more expensive than normal health care and that's where the poor go to receive theres. Not only is if far more pricey it's often too late and people DIE, which is about as serious as you can get. We have 50 MILLION Americans without health insurance. Does that trouble you at all???
It troubles me greatly and it trouble all other compassionate Americans. I am one of the lucky ones who works for an employer that offers health benefits. But it is certainly not free. So I pay taxes and all of the costs for medical treatment that my insurer doesn't. Currently that is a substantial amount and I have little reason to believe it will get better any time soon.
What troubles me just as much as the fact that we have so many millions of Americans living at or below the poverty line (43 million currently) and millions more without insurance NOT using the facilities that our tax dollars have already gone to pay for. There are County/State/Federal facilities across the country that people w/o insurance fail to use. They have to wait to long. The facilities aren't as nice as the others. The staff isn't as cheerful at those facilities; etc. So they go to, with clear conscience to hospitals they should not be using. This has resulted in enormously inflated costs passed along to everyone who can pay. THIS troubles me. How about you?
Personal feelings on the ruling aside, the entire issue presents an interesting choice for the conservative supremes. On the one hand they may feel that the individual mandate oversteps the power of Congress to legislate. On the other hand, if they uphold the individual mandate and the law in general, the beneficiaries will be the very corporations recent rulings have supported. From a corporate perspective, can it be a bad thing that business will increase?
Exactly.....This issue presents a dilemma for republicans. How do you oppose Obama's mandated health care insurance without taking money out of the pocket of big business ?
With so many loop holes in this Obama Care.This will not save anyone lives.Everyone is going to bleed to death$$$$$
People!
This is freaking common sense...Jesus
I will say it again.
As an insured citizen, I find it unfair that those who either can't afford insurance (I don't blame them), or those who simply wish to role the dice can go to the emergency room, get care, and I and every other insured person has to pay a higher premium for them to do so. Thats not fair or right....
The solution is easy...either hospitals HAVE to deny those without insurance or we have a mandate that every individual have some sort of coverage. As it stands hospitals have to take care of anyone who shows up at the emergency room...so it would be beneficial to all of us if every single person in America had insurance so costs wouldn't be added to those who have insurance only.
So anyone who wants to hold up the constitution please think about this for one freaking second...unless you want bleeding and dying people outside of the hospital then we should have an individual mandate.
Vipp, I agree with you 100%. Just last week a work acquaintance told me that he was feeling bad and was going to the ER that night. I asked him why he didn't just go to the doctor and his answer was, and I quote, "because there I have to pay before they let me out of the office and at the ER I just tell them I don't have insurance and they push me through anyway. It's a no-brainer for me." I told him that I might just as well go with him to the doctor and pay for it because, essentially, I was going to pay more because he opted for the Emergency Room.
You are absolutely correct regarding the laws dealing with E.R.'s having to treat anyone with an actual emergency. I used to work for a private hospital. The hospital was inundated with anyone who lived nearby regardless of the fact that there was a County hospital nearby. They didn't want to go there because of longer waits and because the county facility was sub-par in apperance and staff compared to our facility.
Some of the costs can be defered, some written off. But for the most part our facility simply took it on the chin and passed the costs along to it's members through higher annual fees and higher costs for everything invoved in running the facility. Hospitals have now built in ridiculous costs for everything imaginable in an attempt to offset the costs for treating people without insurance. With everyone soon to be forced to have insurance will the hospitals reduce their costs to a reasonable amount again? Doubtful. So the bottom line is that the insurance companies/hospitals/execs running each and pharmaceutical companies simply get set to rake in untold amounts of greater revenues at the cost of every American.
This really gets to the heart of the matter. We need something to control costs, and so far we have not done that. Congress will not set rates, insurance companies put caps on what they will pay for various services, but nothing is done to put an upper limit on costs. This is where the Canadian system works better. Each provider - be it an individual doctor or mega-hospital - gets a budget to spend each year determined through negotiations with each province. Within that budget, money can be spent any way the provider wishes. While not perfect, this at least shifts to burden to control costs to the provider, where it is most controllable. We need - no MUST - do something like this to get our costs under control. For example, I live in an area where the rate for an anesthesiologist is $1400.00 per hour, but my insurance pays about $200.00. That leaves me with a big out of pocket expense even with insurance. No one works to balance this so it is fair to the provider, the insurance company, and me.
Will my MANDATORY health care cover the costs of me in a hospital malnourished and with pneumonia because I can't afford to have a cheap ass dump of an apartment, pay the few bills I have, and not be able to buy food, because I make too much to get government help, but not enough to afford ANY kind of insurance...But hey, if I was a millionaire I wouldn't have to pay taxes anyways...The rich get richer and the poor get poorer...let the separation of social classes get soooo great that it will become the millions of poor who benefit the rich. Maybe instead, I'll slack off, get some unemployment, get down to what is considered the "poverty" level, then let all you tax payers who think that everyone should have healthcare take care of me.
I don't understand theevermonster...
If you made that little in income you would qualify for government assistance anyway? You can't say that you make to much for government help but claim you don't have the money to eat or pay a couple of bills....doesn't add up.
I agree that the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow...that doesn't help things.
Actually, I applied for food stamps once...They said I qualified for $24 a month...nothing like Ramen noodles to satisfy my hunger...Have you lived in Vermont as a single white male on 14,000 a year? I dare you to give it a whirl...
One of the problems is that NOT everyone is going to be covered! Sure alot more people will, but not everyone....Both sides in congress are loser crooks! You guys throw talking points back and forth and they just laugh...Your all sheep!
 Republicans are between a rock and hard place on this one, while they feel compelled to oppose anything Obama does, they fight to make insurance companies, big business and elitist richer. Who is surprised a Bush appointed judge ruled on the side of the insurance industry ?
The time is way past due for the citizens and states in this country to get our federal government in check. Our politicians have been bought, by now we are all very aware of this now we have these filthy progressives tainting our social and political affairs. It would be A CRIME for us in this point and time not to correct our misguided path and take our federal government back from the progressive and corporate hijackers.
We are now under an authoratarian, overbearing and contemptuous federal government (somebody please prove me wrong on that?) We have criminals and derelicts running our affairs, our constitution has been trampled, disrespected and ignored. Our manufacturing base has been sold out by corrupt politicians and greed mongering ("remember that giant whooshing sound"?).
Our federal government has been in contempt for failing to uphold the very laws they have taken oath to uphold now our border security is a sickening joke and we are flooded with illegals. All of this did not happen under this watch it is a continuing pattern of arrogance and disrespect of appointed and elected duties.
We find ourselves in this place this terrible economic situation not just because of the actions or lack there of from the current administration we are where we are today by allowing years of dereliction between BOTH parties. It has been a collective effort from the progressives along with filthy, greedy politicians within BOTH parties to do the damage that has been done. (again somebody prove that to be untrue?)
So why then do we allow the same dog and pony show to continue by continuing to give power to these parties? It is ludicrous to continue this any further and it's up to us collectively to SLAM ON THE BRAKES and kick the sc um out. I know many people are afraid to leave their comfort zone and vote outside the realm of the two parties in fear they will sway the advantage to the other side, but what if BOTH parties were "the other side?" I'm telling you they are the other side it has been PROVEN over and over again (somebody prove it to be otherwise?) We have to take the power and corruption out and get control of our affairs again, these two parties are a collective cancer and we have been continually feeding it - THAT IS FACT.
NOW is the time NOT to feed the same old cancer. The Tea Party has grown many people in the party are fed up with BOTH of the traditional two parties and many of it's members are leery of both sides for all the reasons above and much, much more and rightfully so. I would like to see us collectively get behind a libertarian candidate even if for only one term, we are so far to the left we need a hard pull to the right to correct our path.
A libertarian candidate would realize the three basic functions of the federal government infrastructure, secure borders and a strong military to be used only when the need is real and critical. Focusing on those basic responsibilities and defending our free trade in a FARE way would do worlds of good for our economy, our self esteem and our respect around the world.
If we continue to fail the future generations by continuing down the same old path we are collectively failures and that's how our generation will be remembered.
What you have said is all true.
But what I worry about is how long it would be before the Libertarians or any other "Party" became just as corrupt as the dems/repubs are now.
I'd rather we simply remove political monickers and vote for the person we feel will do the best job for US!
Independent voters rule every election
This is grest news for America. Eric Holder was trying to stall getting this to the Supreme Court so that states and the federal government would have spent soo much as required by law that they would have had to continue. Since we the people lost this one to the federal bureaucrats it is our side that decides when to appeal. You can bet that the Supreme Court will be getting the appeal almost immediately. No one expected to win in that court. Just because someone was appomted by a Republican doesn't make him conservative - see the liberal D. Breyer as an example.
The constitution is nothing more than a word thrown around in partisan debates. The government does whatever the people will let it get away with. Those are the only rules.
I've been on Government medical programs. I wouldn't take my dog to some of the Dr's I had no choice in seeing. I won't be doing it again. IRS can come haul me off to jail I will never sign up for Obamacare. I have great insurance right now via my sisters job. That may be over come November they're talking about throwing out dependants from the coverage. This is a UAW private union job she has ith a major *American* brewery.
No I'll pay cash from my savings, turn off the cell phone, internet, cable TV, use less AC, eat less or unretire and if I run out of all that sell pencils on the street to pay for any Dr other than those who took Medicaid.
Good luck all you retards that think this is a good thing. You are clueless.
Time & again it is shown that which ever side that mr grover's gop, birther, & tea party is on, our country's survival depends on being on the other. I tell you mr grover's one world govt, new world order shadow govt is the pits.
They want to bankrupt this country by having medical expenses climbing to the sky with no end in sight. And that's while sending service into the ground. I tell you we cannot afford it. Already twice as expensive and anybody else, our medical care is ranked at #38 while even mexico ranks #6. And there are soooo many beheadings there.
Obamacare is already holding down medical expenses. Our industries are booming again. The dow, if apple computer currently the 2nd largest company in the world, if apple was added to the dow, the dow would be at all time highs. Higher than it has ever been before. Ever. I tell you the industrials are back and can only go even higher. This could only be done with major major expenses controlled.
Obama is not only a military genius, he is also a financial genius. Now the puppets of mr grover's shadow govt will tell you that employment is still very high. They know all to well that employment is the last thing that improves in any economic recovery and that it took fdr a world war, 15 years, and use of two nuclear bombs in heavily populated urban areas before employment was back to normal.
Well, you can all line up to use a piece of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as toilet paper, assuming Obama hasn't used it already. When the goverment arrogates to itself the ability to tell you that you MUST buy a product that is only available from select sources, at the price that they set, then your liberties and rights are gone. Put a ring in your nose, America, you have just been sold down the river!
WYCH: I take it you didn't object when Dubya took away your "contstitutional rights"???
You didn't mind when he lied us into a war which will cost us several TRILLION??? Where was your outrage then George? That was OK with you, right?
Hypocrit
That would be "hypocrite".
So that is your argument? It is okay that Obama has lied to us over and over because Bush did it? Did you think it was right when Bush did it? If not, then are you a hypocrite for saying Obama gets a free pass to lie constantly and continuously?
WATER: I never even hinted that Obama lied. What did he lie about???
My entire point was that the Right didn't seem at all upset with all the Billions that Bush simply through away. Then when Obama wants to see that every American receives decent health care, he's a monster who has torn the Constitution into shreds. I find that fascinating. Waste several trillions on pointless wars and the Right says nothing. Try to streamline our health care system to be less costly and provide all Americans with decent health care and Obama is a monster. I would say that some people have their priorities asll screwed up.
Will someone please answer my question....
If hospitals are required to see every patient...including those without insurance...and those patients they see that have no insurance costs find there way into the premiums of those who are insured should there only be two ways to fix this?
A) Either hospitals have to deny anyone without insurance. That would mean leaving many sick and dying people outside of hospitals.
or B) We have an individual mandate requiring everyone to have some sort of insurance coverage.
If anyone can tell me a fair alternative where we don't have the mandate but the cost of those un-insured aren't tacked on to premiums of those who are insured...please let me know.
I think this debate comes down to common sense.
If a person shows up at the hospital without insurnace, sign that person up for Medicaid. If it is found later they could afford insurance and just chose not to have it, make them pay the bills. We have the safelty net already, Medicaid.
Then whats the problem with having a mandate if you are going to force people to sign up for medicaid? What if I don't want medicaid...does the government have the right to tell me what I have to do? I don't understand you people.....
3RD PARTY: We have a safety net called Medicaid???
Isn't that the very same Medicaid that your Republican Party wants to defund and emasculate????
That's called HYPOCRISY 3RD Party............
ozzie you nut job!
Conservs are ok with some basic safety nets..we are not ok with the govt completely ruling our lives...apparently you have drank the liberal koolaid and you will regret it my friend...
Will the last American leaving these shores with FREEDOM & LIBERTY on their mind please bring the flag?
3rd Party: I take you are referring to the Freedoms that George Bush took away? The ability to arrest and hold someone without being brought before a judge? The freedoms he took holding prisononers indefinately without a trial. Those kind of freedoms?????????????????
ozzie..yes...believe it or not you idiot...conservatives do not love bush and yes...he treaded on our rights and yes we should have spoke up sooner...we failed to...but we are speaking up now...
Stop playing that card and come up with a new one...
Trust me...you will regret and we as a country will regret giving up our freedoms for "security"
MARK: I take it you have difficulty expressing yourself without resorting to name calling??? The sign of a very simple and infantile mind. But then, you are a Conservative, are you not???
Too bad you waited until AFTER Bush left office to get religion regarding fiscal conserventcy. The time to do it was when he was starting TWO UNFUNDED WARS. Can you think of another war in American history were we CUT TAXES???? You can't Mark, cause it never happened. Just imagine, if you will, if early in 1942 when we were getting our asses kicked bigtime in the Pacific not to mention what awaited us in North Africa if FDR had said "I really feel the pain of all you rich folks and you mega corporations so I'm going to give you all massive tax breaks" Good idea Mark??? Not so much, right?
And FYI, I encounter many Righties on here to are willing to defend to the death, their boy Dubya. Mark, I'd call it a case of convenient timing on your part. Barely a word right through Dubya's last day and then the moment Obama was sworn it, a huge cry was heard across the land. Never heard of the Tea Party until after Obama entered office. Interesting, don't you think Mark??????????
The sections regarding the Farmer is written so poorly it should never have been published. First, get the farmer's name right. Second, explain the whole story...Mr. Filburn was a wheat producer and during the great depression there was a federal law limiting the amount of wheat a farmer could grow. Mr. Filburn exceeded the limit and argued that since the excess was not going to be sold but instead was to be consumed on the farm (by his animals, not by him) that it wouldn't be subject to the limits. Any average Joe or Joan that wanted to grow wheat for their own consumption could have without any problem and Congress couldn't stop them.
However, the citizens of the US are simply Health Insurance consumers and not producers. I personally do not see the connection. The argument that the uninsured pass the cost of health care to the insured is also a poor argument. First, it is the Healthcare providers that pass the cost of non-payment on to those who pay in the form of higher costs. Since the insured can also refuse to pay their portion, both the insured and uninsured that don't pay their bills force the providers to past of the costs. Second, since Health Insurance is just a form of risk management, the Insurance Companies and simply reflecting the higher prices that the providers are charging.
At this point, none of the lower courts ruling have any true meaning since it is understood that the Supreme Court will eventually rule on the Act and they will have the final say.
Good post Shawn,
I pray that the Supreme court overturns this...
Well this ought to piss off the GOP :) :) :)
I also heard the it was declared that Obama didn't need Congress approval for Lybia, either
GOP-Losers
MJL...and you are happy about this...wtf is wrong with you!
You are ok with a supreme leader...???
MarkWS
Mark is a pointless blowhard! Ignore him. - Just read his posts....
Wow. How can that be illegal??? What is this, China!?!
This is so WRONG!
I am shock at your Americans that are willing to sell your freedom and to allow the govt to force you to buy anything!
What are you thinking...??? Very sad day for our country..! Our freedom to chose and to live our lives like we want is truly diminishing...Very disappointed with this ruling...
Mark...
I'm forced to pay taxes...I'm forced to pay into social security....I'm forced to pay into Medicare....I'm forced to pay for STUPID WARS AND CORPORATE WELFARE!!
Unless you want hospitals to turn away people who don't have insurance there needs to be a mandate in place. It's common sense....if I have to pay for someone else to go to the hospital because there seen, they can't afford it, and the cost are dumped on the premiums of those with insurance than the only fair thing to do is have hospitals deny anyone who does not have insurance. Is that what you want? Bleeding babies outside of the hospital? The mandate makes common sense...
vipp...show me one ounce of proof that babies are being turned away you idiot...you are willing to give up more and more freedoms for "security"...what is wrong with you ?
Hospitals cannot turn folks away...get the facts before you spew your liberal vomit you trader!
Mark,
Obviously you had a problem with reading and comprehension in school.
Lets start over...
As you stated hospitals can not turn people away. That is true. That means that they see every patient that comes through the door even when they don't have insurance. When hospitals are forced to give care to those who do not have insurance the costs are passed on to those who do have insurance...the premiums that insured people have to pay go up as a result of hospitals seeing every patient. Is that fair to you? It's not fair to me...I'm insured but I shouldn't have to pay for those who are not.
Thus, if your not for the mandate then you should be for hospitals denying care to those who do not have insurance. Thats the only fair way....
Unless there is a mandate. If there is a mandate everyone would be insured and the hospitals could see everybody without effecting a group of people more than another.
Did we get it this time?
MARK: My good buddy Mark again.
Say Mark, whose the stupid one???
Hospitals can't turn you away if you're bleeding to death or just had a massive heart attack. However, they sure as hell can turn you away if you show up and say you want a colonoscopy, a catscan, or any other kind of testing to PRECLUDE the onset of a serious illness. They're not going to check you for early cancer screening or for a woman to have a breast exam. Whey you're already dying??? Sure, then its no problem.
Look at it this way Mark, is it cheaper changing your oil every 3000 miles or driving your car for 75K, never having opened the hood. I realize you don't give a damn for all the people who suffer and die for want of decent med. care but look at it as a business decision. It's cheaper to keep people healthy then it is trying to patch them back together when they have a terminal illness.
Oh and Mark............. Have a nice day.
This a huge defeat for the Obama haters.
This a huge defeat for the takers of SS and Medicare that would deny health to younger folks.
This is a huge defeat for Tea Party Congressmen and Women that were elected last year and rushed to obtain their own Golden House of Representative Health Insurance Policy. (The same kind they want to deny you).
This is Justice courtesy of the Sixth Circuit.
Agreed!!
It is not over yet you clowns!
Mark...please go get an education.
MARK: It sure as hell is all over for you........................
 I must have missed the part where the neocons suggest their solution for the 50 million uninsured in this country? Let me guess- status quo?Â
NONE OF US want to live in a country where hospitals turn away people that could easily be treated, to die. If you don't want auto insurance, you don't drive a car. So therefore, if you don't want health insurance you don't use the health care system? Yeah, that makes sense..until you think about it.. 99.99999% of the people in this country WILL use/participate in the health care system, it only makes sense that they have health insurance. Please let the party of no suggest a viable alternative.
Cory...I'm baffled at how many people can't understand this simple logic. I try and try and try to explain exactly what you just wrote in your post but for whatever reason people keeping saying that their freedoms are being taken away...(head bangs off of desk).
CORY: I'm afraid you credit our Conservative cousins with too much humanity. Lot's of them simply don't care that the wealthiest nation on earh has tens of millions who go regularly without healthcare and that many of them suffer and die. In many of these instances some very simple and basic health care could have sufficed to save them.
Don't you know, our #1 job is to make the rich, richer???
Next, they'll be telling us we have to buy a Nissan Leaf or a Chevy Volt, or take a bus, or ride a bike. No more buying the car you like and want. You will buy the car we want you to have so that the price can come down so that everyone can afford one. We have monkeys running this country.
This court said it is Constitutional for Congress to regulate commerce.
Your analogy falls in to the category of hyperbole.
I guess the sale of cars is no longer commerce.
Well of course it is and Congress could regulate it but they won't. Why? Because it's preposterous.
In fact, Lt. Commander, I feel my comment is quite appropriate considering they used a ruling passed in 1942 as a basis for their decision.
In 1942, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the power to stop an Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filbert, from growing his own wheat. The court said then that his decision to grow his own, rather than buying wheat on the national market, affected interstate commerce, which Congress has the authority to regulate.
What exactly did they mean by "affected"? Sounds to me like if I want to buy a Corvette, instead of a Nissan Leaf, that the government has a right to say that I can't; that I must buy what they feel is acceptable to their vision of commerce. In fact, if I want to build my own car, they can tell me I can't build my own car and that I must buy one from someone on the open market instead. Good luck growing vegetables in your back yard so that you don't have to buy them from the grocery store. Exactly what I want the government to do; tell me where I have to buy my groceries...and my car.
I realize that my comment that the government would do this sounds preposterous. Long ago, people thought they owned the property they bought. Of course, we know that emminent domain has proven that to be a lie. Of course they have to pay you a fair price, which according to the government is always less than what it is really worth.
The government can regulate interstate commerce. period. All your analogies are superfluous.
The government can even tell you to go to Viet Nam and get your ass shot off. OMG!
"In 1942, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the power to stop an Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filbert, from growing his own wheat. The court said then that his decision to grow his own, rather than buying wheat on the national market, affected interstate commerce, which Congress has the authority to regulate."
MSNBC's summary of the case is extremely poor. The farmer in that case (Roscoe Filburn) was producing wheat to sell on the commercial market. He was also growing additional wheat beyond what he was allowed to grow as a wheat producer because he wanted to use it to feed the livestock on his farm. The unanimous court holding was that even though Filburn's wheat was not entering the market place, it was still commerce because it would affect the amount of wheat purchased on the open market and thus affect its price.
"Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices." - Justice Robert Jackson
So, as long as it stimulates the economy/trade, the government should be able to stick it to me any damn way they please. Go USA!
Here's the deal...Here in America, home of the "Free" everything is on credit. Your land is on credit, you "buy" it, then get taxed to hell on it over the course of your life, thus paying more then it was originally worth. Your house is bought on credit, assuming you're not one of the few wealthy Americans...again, paying taxes and interest (the average cost of a $250,000 on a 30 year loan with little to no money down is roughly $800,000) and can you borrow that much later? NO. It's still only worth what the loan was worth, not what you ACTUALLY paid for it. Everything in this world is borrowed. The loan for your car, your food, your electricity, your HEALTHCARE. It's money not well spent...
The decision is an interesting read. It does have a weakness that the Supreme Court could easily reject. They refute the idea that the congress is using the Commerce Clause to legislate something that is an inactivity in a most suspect way. They say that not buying insurance is an activity - and call it self-insuring. So congress is legislating the activity of self-insuring. Using this logic, one can refute the concept of inactivity altogether. I am not being inactive by sitting in a chair but am doing the activity of sitting. We shall see.
non-activity has criminal and civil implications too. It is a valid concept.
Once the government can coerce you into buying health insurance, then it's going to be okay for them to coerce you into doing whatever else the idiots, otherwise known as professional politicians, decide is best for the pocketbooks of the supporters of their personal causes. Sadly, the truth of this will be completely lost on the people who never bothered to learn their history, until we are all completely lost along with them.
SANDI: Yea, some day this country will even draft young people into the military and force them to go off too foreign lands to fight and die in unnecessary wars. Where's it gonna end???
They'll probably even make people who want to fly have to get half undressed before they can board a plane.
it's OB smack down time.
They Already Have forced us to do more .. Not just forcing us to Buy healthcare , they force you to Wear your Seat belt .. They Forced us to Bail out the to big to Fail - they forced us to Pay for wars that have gotten us no where ..
They have forced us to Accept millions of Illegal Immigrants .. and WILL force us to watch as they grant Amnesty to them .. They force us to Pay For welfare and Foods stamps and Etc etc .. trust me .. We are forced to do many things we don't like .. I love how we have Millionaires Representing us but they have no Idea what it's like to live our lives or know what we want for Our Country .. we Have no Say so .. All the politicians Are Scum ..