Appeals Court rules part of Obamacare unconstitutional......

[BigSkyBob]

It's really depressing that we have so many judges that don't understand the constitution deciding our laws for us.

What is pathetic is people whom don't believe that the rules, aka "Constitution," are an impediment to doing what you want to do.

[BigSkyBob]

The part, of course, where you have to buy coverage or pay a penalty.

Just one more step on its journey to SCOTUS.

The fact that there are people in the United States that would file a lawsuit so they could have the right to NOT buy health insurance tells you why the country is such a mess today.  Which financial adviser is out there telling people NOT to buy health insurance.

The Constitution enshrines a federal government with limited, enumerated powers. Policies outside those powers rest either with the states, or by means of amending the Constitution by the process stated in the Constitution. Constitutional questions are decided by their Constitutional merit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

If the decision moves to en banc rulings, we need to wait. Otherwise, there is already a split between circuits in the Court of Appeals. Generally, when splits occur, the Supreme Court will take a case of importance, and, this is certainly of importance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

The problem isn't having health insurance. It's having to buy health insurance. It widens the scope of government authority and corporatism at the expense of liberty for individuals and communities. It leaves no room for people to, for example, pool their resources in other ways. Sure, there's an exemption for Amish or other "recognized religious sect" but that leaves a constitutional issue of its own.

Sooo... you think people should NOT buy health insurance?

It doesn't actually matter if you think people should buy health insurance. What matters is that the federal government is forcing people to buy something.

So we all agree everyone that can afford to should buy health insurance.  But Republicans will file a lawsuit against the idea anyway... "on principle."

Its amazing.  The government mandates something that is common sense that we ALL agree on and the Republicans file a lawsuit.

Whether it is "common sense" to buy health insurance is one question [for the judgment proof it is an open question].

What is also "common sense" is the position that once the sale of something is mandated, the providers of that something have significantly less incentive to control costs.

But, such discussion are irrelevent. The Constitution didn't create a federal government to do anything "sensible" whatever that means. It granted limited, enumerated powers to that federal government. Whether, or not, mandating individuals to buy the product of a private company is within those enumerated powers is the question being decided in the Courts. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Last I heard, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, et al spoke in audible tones. Even if you didn't listen, their voices were still there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which speaks more about you than them.

[BigSkyBob]

But, such discussion are irrelevent. The Constitution didn't create a federal government to do anything "sensible" whatever that means. It granted limited, enumerated powers to that federal government. Whether, or not, mandating individuals to buy the product of a private company is within those enumerated powers is the question being decided in the Courts. 

My point exactly.  There is no logical reason anyone wouldn't want to buy health insurance.  You purely oppose the law "just because."

1) Opposing Unconstitutional laws because they are unconstitutional is not "just because." Either we are a nation of laws, or men.


2) You are merely showing your intent to assign a strawman to intellectual opponents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

What is also "common sense" is the position that once the sale of something is mandated, the providers of that something have significantly less incentive to control costs.

Wrong.  Where I live it is mandatory that every family purchase at least one car in order to get around. 

No, that isn't the meaning of "mandatory." Owning a car is a practical necessity in such a town. However, those that can't afford cars must do without. For instance, they must either walk, or depend on friends, relatives, and/or taxis to  go from place to place. Others will economize with a motorcycle, or compact car. If the local government mandated car ownership, then there would be a spike in the price of low-end economy cars.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your logic is lacking.  Your notion that people ought to buy "health insurance" is an example of the fallacy of equivocation. "Insurance" is buying protection against bill you can not pay by pooling risk. "Health insurance" that constitutes "insurance" against bills you cannot pay are high-deductible catastrophic policies. Buying a typical policy is economic idiocy for those whom can risk-rate themselves as being low expected medical cost. Those whom risk-rate themselves as a poor risk, those with chronic conditions, etc., will be more than eager to pool their costs across the larger pool. Forcing everyone into such a pool is simply the mandating of the subsidy of the sick by the healthy, the old by the young, etc.

[BigSkyBob]

Wonder how that would play out if the SCOTUS pulled an late October 2012 surprise and struck it down.

It would be seen for what it is: a blatant political ploy.

a ploy?  it's been winding it's way through the courts for the last 2 years.   It would be a disaster for Obama, for he would have ZERO "accomplishments".

And, the challenges were filed almost immediately. Two years is simply how long it takes for such cases to wind through  the system.