http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/02/hint-supreme-court-rejects-rulings-row-west-coast-bench/

NYPoet

i happen to disagree with michale on this issue, but i believe his reasoning is thus: riding a motorcycle is a choice. if you don't want to ride, you can go buy a car or take the bus. therefore it is okay for the state to mandate a choice, but only if an individual has some viable way to opt out. unless suicide becomes legal, it is not your choice whether or not to occupy your own body.

That's exactly my reasoning...

It goes along with what I told Liz about acquiring a GOV job that requires physical exertion that would necessitate a gym membership...

If one CHOOSES to partake in a hazardous activity that could bring harm to others than a mandate for insurance is prudent and logical..

As for Medicare and Social Security, you do raise a valid point.

The horse HAS left the barn in that regard...

However, as you point out, the mandate to purchase a private sector product is new...

While it could be viewed as a logical progression of the Medicate/SS programs, I think it's a step too far...

Time will tell if the SCOTUS agrees with my assessment...

Give the predilections of the SCOTUS in the here and now and given the overwhelming opposition to the mandate which has been established as "unseverable", I doubt CrapCare will survive the day..

Time will tell...

Michale.....

This ain't probably gonna win me any friends around here, but personally I think if someone wants to ride a motorcycle, they should be disqualified from receiving ANY medical care unless they pay for the worst possible outcome upfront...

Call it the Evel Keneivel Policy... :D If yer gonna do stoopid shit like that, yer gonna pay thru the noise BEFORE you mount the bike...

And I am speaking as a guy who used to ride a motorcycle to work and back in San Diego....

It's actually funny. My big brother used to tell me I was nuts for riding a motorcycle...

The irony is he was a motocross racer at the time.. :D

Actually, almost immediately after the Constitution was passed, there were laws which mandated that all males own/purchase a gun (to improve the state militias). The Founding Fathers were still around at the time, so they must have thought it was okey-dokey with the Constitution.

Yea, but you know how the Gun Control Lobby has totally fracked up the Founding Father's original intent...

If the GCL had their way, the only thing Americans would have to defend themselves with is harsh language...

Michale.....

by your logic, i believe medicare and social security would also be unconstitutional, since we the taxpayers are required to provide a service for others that we may or may not end up receiving ourselves. essentially, we've all been forced to buy old-age insurance. if i die before sixty, all that money i spent on medicare and social security will never reach me or my relatives. this is a hard-core right wing argument, but its logic is internally consistent.

this is not exactly an endorsement for the health care policy, but the way i see it, the slippery slope was put in place decades ago. as such, it's a bit silly to make an issue of it just because it's happened with something new. if there were a public option, the scenario would be exactly the same as medicare or social security. however, because we're mandated to buy a corporate product, it takes things just a bit further.

i happen to disagree with michale on this issue, but i believe his reasoning is thus: riding a motorcycle is a choice. if you don't want to ride, you can go buy a car or take the bus. therefore it is okay for the state to mandate a choice, but only if an individual has some viable way to opt out. unless suicide becomes legal, it is not your choice whether or not to occupy your own body.

Actually, almost immediately after the Constitution was passed, there were laws which mandated that all males own/purchase a gun (to improve the state militias). The Founding Fathers were still around at the time, so they must have thought it was okey-dokey with the Constitution.

-CW

I've heard this argument before about car insurance, and you know I've called for Obama to dump the mandate, but a thought occurred to me, so I thought I'd float it by you to see what you think.

How do you feel about mandating that motorcyclists wear helmets? I know, there aren't direct paralells (it's a state issue, not federal, for starters) and I'm not saying there are. But I'm still curious to know what you think, because when it happened out here there was a HUGE outcry from the bikers. But the logic used was interesting: when you crash a motorcycle, you get hurt. A LOT of motorcyclists had no health insurance, and therefore wound up on the public dime -- sometimes for the rest of their lives (lots of public dimes, in other words). Head injuries were the worst. So mandating that they wear a helmet was done directly to bring the state's medical costs down.

As I said, there aren't direct parallels, more of an ideological question, but where would you have stood on this issue? Just curious.

-CW

And if somebody never sees a doctor, then no sane government SHOULD force them to buy health insurance..

If somebody doesn't have health concerns that impact upon them or emanate from them, then they would be quite dead, literally,

I am not sure how you got from point A to point B with this..

Many people don't see a doctor and will never see a doctor ever. Why should THEY have to pay for something that they may never use, just so someone ELSE can have it cheaper??

The mandate to buy Auto Insurance is identical to the mandate to buy Health Insurance..

BOTH mandates presupposes that, eventually, a person will come under the auspices of the respective category..

The mandate to purchase Health Insurance presupposes that, eventually, a person will see a doctor or will need medical attention.

The mandate to purchase Auto Insurance presupposes that a person will, eventually, own and drive a vehicle...

BOTH mandates are outside the purview of the Federal Government...

Once this gets to the Supreme Court, I am certain that is exactly how the SCOTUS will rule.

Vinson, in his ruling, cited numerous SCOTUS precedents to support his ruling. It is inconceivable that the SCOTUS could rule any other way..

Michale.....

So, what do you think about that?

What do you think about a mandate that forced people to buy auto insurance, even if they don't drive?? You MUST purchase auto insurance because that will bring down prices and, hay, you MIGHT drive in the future.

Isn't that clearly unconstitutional??

I'm sorry but your analogy is wholly inaccurate - not to mention nonsensical - and has nothing to say about health insurance.

If somebody doesn't drive, then no sane government would force them to buy auto insurance ... not even the Obama administration!

If somebody doesn't have health concerns that impact upon them or emanate from them, then they would be quite dead, literally, and no government could manadate them to buy health insurance.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

For the auto insurance example to be an accurate analogy, it would have to be that you are forced to buy auto insurance even if you don't drive..

So, what do you think about that?

What do you think about a mandate that forced people to buy auto insurance, even if they don't drive?? You MUST purchase auto insurance because that will bring down prices and, hay, you MIGHT drive in the future.

Isn't that clearly unconstitutional??

What about the measure in South Dakota?? The state of South Dakota is trying to pass a measure that, within 6 months of turning 21, each resident of South Dakota MUST purchase a firearm unless otherwise precluded by other laws..

Wouldn't that be clearly unconstitutional??

Those two examples are clearly and unequivocally against the US Constitution..

And yet, they are completely identical to the CrapCare mandate...

If Obama and the Democrats had any political smarts at all, they would join Republicans and repeal CrapCare in it's entirety and start over, taking the best that CrapCare has to offer (no denial of pre-existing conditions, children on longer, etc etc) and taking the best GOP ideas (tort reform, etc etc) and mold a new Health Care Reform package that ACTUALLY reforms health care...

With a bi-partisan approach that ignores corporate lobbyists, a new package could be hashed out in weeks... Not the year+ it took Democrats to do it when they went it alone without the support of the American people...

Michale.....

Thanks very much for that explanation. This part especially resonated with me ...

First off, the mandate to purchase auto insurance comes from the states, not the federal government.

This may be why then Senator Biden really did have the best plan for healthcare reform of all of the Democratic presidential candidates. Still, that didn't preclude him from 'announcing' the Affordable Care Act as a BFD. :)

Say I want to get a job with the Federal Government. The job is strenuous and physical. The government can mandate that I purchase a membership in a gym so I can lose weight and get into shape. This is required if I want to have that job.. If I don't want to purchase a gym membership, I don't HAVE to... I simply can't have the job..

A mandate to purchase a product as a requirement for something else. This is prudent, reasonable and, above all, constitutional.

However, under the CrapCare mindset, the Obama Administration can mandate I purchase a gym membership to lose weight and get into shape simply by virtue of me being an American citizen. Under CrapCare, the government can force this based on the theory that I might, repeat *MIGHT* became a health care burden in the future.. And, if I refuse to purchase a gym membership and lose weight, the Obama Administration can fine me to cover health care costs that I might, repeat *MIGHT* incur in the future..

As an American, I have no choice but to purchase a private product.

You see what a slippery slope this is??

In two years time, it's likely we will be having full GOP control over the House, the Senate and the White House..

Do you really want to give the power of the Mandate to Republicans???

Just think of all the things that Republicans can force Americans to purchase.

Bibles! Chastity belts!! Reader's Digest!!!

The horror!!!! :D

Michale.....

The mandate to purchase a house to combat homelessness example did not come from Judge Vinson.

It was an example that Obama gave AGAINST a healtcare mandate during the 2008 election..

Michale.....

If CrapCare is so good, why has the Obama Administration issued over 730 waivers to groups, businesses and corporations..

Interestingly enough, the vast majority of groups receiving waivers are the groups that supported Obama in the '08 elections...

Michale.....

Yes, but there are several things that make the comparison invalid.

First off, the mandate to purchase auto insurance comes from the states, not the federal government.

Second, it's a requirement that is contingent on operating a motor vehicle. If you want the privilege of operating a motor vehicle, it's a requirement that you have auto insurance.

With CrapCare, the only "requirement" is that you are an American citizen and you are breathing.

The mandate is unconstitutional. Without the mandate, CrapCare cannot function.

Michale.....

The Federal Government simply cannot force Americans to buy a product they may not want to buy.

Don't Americans have to buy auto insurance?

I can sum it up with one phrase from the Judge who ruled..

Trying to solve Health Care problem by mandating that everyone buy insurance is akin to trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating that everyone buy a house.

The Federal Government simply cannot force Americans to buy a product they may not want to buy..

With that kind of power, where would it stop??

Have the government tell you that you MUST by a bicycle instead of a car to solve the pollution problem?

Ironically enough, this was Obama's position during the '08 campaign. And he scorned and ridiculed Hillary because the mandate was her position.

Michale.....

What is it about the Affordable Care Act that makes it so unconstitutional from the point of view of some conservative judges?

I don't want to read the link ... just give me the general gist of it.

Florida judge rules that health care law is unconstitutional and says the entire act must be declared void.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-usa-healthcare-ruling-idUSTRE70U6RY20110131?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews

Michale.....

Good one! I laughed my ass off at this!! :D

Thanx

Michale.....

By the by, love the Pinky And The Brain reference... :D

Michale......

A "Black Widow" suicide bomber planned a terrorist attack in central Moscow on New Year's Eve but was killed when an unexpected text message set off her bomb too early, according to Russian security sources.

Security sources believe a message from her mobile phone operator wishing her a happy new year received just hours before the planned attack triggered her suicide belt, killing her at a safe house.

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Text+message+blows+suicide+bomber+accident/4172966/story.html#ixzz1CVG3G14G

Talk about your DOH!! moments.. :D

Michale.....

and yes, i came up with it all on my own

"I don't care who you are, that right thar was funny as hell, I tell yooo whaat"
-Larry The Cable Guy

Michale.....

What are you doing???

same thing our country does every night, pinky...

and another thought, since the motto of the state of the union address was "Win The Future" (WTF), I think the appropriate acronym for the speech (and all future state of the union speeches) should be derived from different letters in the title:

"StaTe oF the Union" = STFU

and yes, i came up with it all on my own

:)
~joshua

Egypt is burning...

What are you doing???

Michale.....

AMEN TO THAT!!!!

Michale.....

and that, my friends, is a big part of the problem. yes, the narrative has to get better, but - holy heck - so does the POLICY.