Will SCOTUS find the private health insurance mandate unconstitutional?

[MannyGoldstein]

Poll question: Will SCOTUS find the private health insurance mandate unconstitutional?

[blondeatlast]

1. I'll vote if SCOTUS even agrees to hear the case. nt

[GoCubsGo]

2. Of course they will.

Anything to help their corporate buddies get even richer.

[Puregonzo1188]

17. I kind of agree. I could see them avoiding this case.

[Statistical]

22. How would finding the mandate Constitutional help insurance companies?

The mandate being Constitutional was the carrot. The insurance companies love the idea of 300 million forced consumers.
Striking that down would remove the only component of the bill they like.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grilled onions]

4. How Constitutional Is It To Have To Pay Someone Else's Bill?

Every time you go to a doctor or hospital part of your bill pays for those who can't(understandable) or those who just don't want to(not quite as understandable). It's a similar problem with car insurance when those insured have to pay part for those who refuse to buy their own. This seems to be more of a state law but I don't recall anyone saying it was unconstitutional yet it is never fair to be in an accident and having to pay to fix your vehicle and not getting the other guy to pay his share even when it is his fault.

[obxhead]

5. So it is fair to expect me to pay for someones health care

by forcing me to buy into insurance I don't need.

That's sound reasoning you have there.

[Statistical]

6. You don't have to own a car. The car meme is utterly busted.

1) You don't have to own a car.
2) You don't have to have insurance on a car if it never leaves your private property.

Now you may say I **NEED** a car but the reality is you don't. It might be horribly inconvenient but there are other options.

This is the govt forcing you to purchase private goods from a private party or face a fine/penalty. It isn't even close to the same thing.

[BzaDem]

13. That doesn't mean it isn't allowed.

If the federal government has the power to regulate pre-existing conditions (which it does), it certainly has the power to enact something that is required for those regulations to work (the mandate) through the "necessary and proper" clause.

[Statistical]

20. Hardly. Look up strict scrutiny.

Just because the govt can do something to protect the public good doesn't mean it is allowed to.

There are multiple methods to regulate pre-existing conditions. The mandate is the most intrusive and complex.

The govt could simply prohibit pricing based on conditions (like all employer based coverage which is where 90%+ of Americans get coverage).
The govt could adopt a single payer system.
The govt could adopt a system where those without private insurance (or who opt out of private insurance) are enrolled into a public option plan (paid for by payroll tax deductions).

The govt has an interest in preserving the health of the nation however one couldn't argue that forced workout camps are an acceptable method to "reform" unhealthy citizens. When the govt reaches first for the most burdensome option when other viable options it brings up Constitutional Scrutiny.

[leftstreet]

7. No kidding! And I shouldn't have to pay your SS or Medicare!

Get a job, make some decent investments!

:sarcasm:

[lonestarnot]

9. How constifuckingtutional is it to "pay someone else's" taxes?

[H2O Man]

10. That is not a

Constitutional issue. The mandate to force people to buy health insurance is. The distinction is pretty obvious.

[Johonny]

8. really hard to know

Does this court really want to rewrite the commerce law? Well some on it for sure, but in what direction?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

11. I got an idea.

I think it could be constitutional IF there was a government subsidy to pay for it, with some sort of means test.

Just my not so humble legal opinion. J.D. here.

[customerserviceguy]

12. I have the feeling that Kagan is not as progressive as we've hoped

I see the mandate going down.

[BzaDem]

14. Oh, I would be shocked if Kagan touched it. She wouldn't even say in her hearings that it would be

unconstitutional for the federal government to force you to buy 3 servings of vegetables a day.

[AlinPA]

15. 5-4. The right wing SC already knows how they will vote. They have their orders from republican

headquarters.

[Capn Sunshine]

16. Will that be good or bad? If HCR goes down, what will that mean?

Once again a great example of some privledged mofos telling the rest of us what to think.

What's at stake:

Positive change number one: Fewer uninsured Americans should lead to a lower-cost health care system
Positive change number two: No more caps on coverage
Positive change number three: Insurance companies can no longer refuse coverage based on preexisting medical conditions.

Positive change number four: Keeping kids on their parent’s policy longer
Positive change number five: More employers will be offering coverage.-Tax credits or doing so.
Positive change number six: Free preventative health care.
Positive change number seven: A better appeals process
Positive change number eight: Help for seniors.
Postive Change number nine: Fees on tanning salons. Lowers skin cancer rate cumulatively.

Now I realize that these changes are difficult to understand, and are ahuge threat to the status quo that makes so many DUers happy and complacent.
But in the whole, I would think these changes were a good thing and a great start.
I get the sense the anti-mandate folks are the same ones who won't wear a motorcycle helmet.

[Zavulon]

19. I wear a motorcycle helmet and

I couldn't be more anti-mandate. We waited forever for a good health care bill and instead got this piece of shit. It kind of looks like you are telling the rest of us what to think.

[Statistical]

21. Striking down the mandate doesn't strike down the entire bill. n/t

[spanone]

18. screwn

[rug]

23. If they found eminent domain constitutional for a private use

with indirect public benefit, they may well find a law ordering private citizens to purchase for-profit health insurance to be constitutional.

[Bandit]

24. 5-4 they will find whatever Republicans say it should be..

There is no doubt in any thinking person's mind that they are anything other than partisan hacks.

[MadHound]

25. Hopefully it will,

Otherwise what product will we be forced to purchase next under pain of law.