Affordable Care Act Supreme Court Hearings this week

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Once again you miss the point entirely. It doesn't matter, as far as the constitutionality of the law is concerned, that everyone will use healthcare at some point.

It matters because if people are going to use health care they are going to participate in interstate commerce regardless if they're paying for it or not. If everybody is participating then there's no real argument that someone can really opt out.

Jim, I actually read the entire transcript from yesterday...have you?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It matters because if people are going to use health care they are going to participate in interstate commerce regardless if they're paying for it or not. If everybody is participating then there's no real argument that someone can really opt out.

Jim, I actually read the entire transcript from yesterday...have you?

-spence

Spence, in your previous post, you didn't make a reference to the Commerce clause. you implied that the individual mandate was justified because of how many people participate in healthcare. I was reacting to what you posted.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It matters because if people are going to use health care they are going to participate in interstate commerce regardless if they're paying for it or not. If everybody is participating then there's no real argument that someone can really opt out.

Jim, I actually read the entire transcript from yesterday...have you?

-spence

No, most health CARE is not interstate. Some products that are used may have crossed state borders and such products can be "regulated"--whatever that means. But the actual care, unless the hospital is straddling a border, is usually intrastate, not interstate. A great deal of health care is only consultative with no products being used or exchanged. In any event, the B R O A D, expansive, "interpretation" of "commerce," "regulate,." and "interstate," is not justified in the text of the Constitution, neither was it intended according to the extant documents of ratification and explanations given in letters and statements later by the founders. But that is, apparently, not important to you. Valid arguments about what such broad interpretation and the power it grants to the Central Government, and the fundamental change in the relation between the citizen and the government also seem to be of no importance to you. What seems to matter only is a solution to a problem regardless of what precedence that solution gives to government to "regulate" every aspect of our lives. No matter even that much of the problem is created by government in the first place--the same government that presumes to fix it. Nor does it seem to matter to you that the solution, along with the train of solutions over the past 70 years, destroys the foundation, the structure of limited, representative government built specifically to ensure individual lilberty, and replaces the structure with an amorphous, unlimited administrative apparatus. An apparatus that will replace individual sovereignty and more "efficiently" solve all our "collective" problems. I ask again, of what use are 50 different State governments and an unadhered to Constitution to such an apparatus?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It matters because if people are going to use health care they are going to participate in interstate commerce

-spence

it was statements like these and other tortured definitions of convenience that found the Solicitor General being laughed at on the floor of the Supreme Court the last few days.

from : MOTHER JONES

Obamacare's Supreme Court Disaster
—By Adam Serwer

The White HouseSolicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court.

Sounding less like a world-class lawyer and more like a teenager giving an oral presentation for the first time, Verrilli delivered a rambling, apprehensive legal defense of liberalism's biggest domestic accomplishment since the 1960s—and one that may well have doubled as its eulogy.


that's from BIG Obamacare supporters