Supreme Court and the Individual Health Insurance Mandate

[Free Palestine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Heh

[Free Palestine]

Not to mention that a Supreme Court ruling that health insurance is not interstate commerce would be a signed invitation for some of the Democratic trifecta states to enact state-level single payer.  It probably wouldn't be a big deal on the national level if Vermont did this, but what about California or Massachusetts?   

Good, that's the way it SHOULD be.

I have often wondered whether those most opposed to HCR would support the same program, or even something far to the left of it (like single payer) at the state level simply on federalist grounds.  You say yes.  The hope on the far left and the fear on the far right is that state level government health insurance will spread rapidly after a very influential state (like CA) adopts it.  What if there was a chain reaction through the states where 35 or 40 adopted single payer over 15 years and it became the de facto national health policy, which is basically what happened to the Canadian health care system in 1945-60?  Would you then regret leaving HCR completely up to the states?

I don't know if I'd really be opposed to HCR at the state level.

[Free Palestine]

Not to mention that a Supreme Court ruling that health insurance is not interstate commerce would be a signed invitation for some of the Democratic trifecta states to enact state-level single payer.  It probably wouldn't be a big deal on the national level if Vermont did this, but what about California or Massachusetts?   

Good, that's the way it SHOULD be.

I have often wondered whether those most opposed to HCR would support the same program, or even something far to the left of it (like single payer) at the state level simply on federalist grounds.  You say yes.  The hope on the far left and the fear on the far right is that state level government health insurance will spread rapidly after a very influential state (like CA) adopts it.  What if there was a chain reaction through the states where 35 or 40 adopted single payer over 15 years and it became the de facto national health policy, which is basically what happened to the Canadian health care system in 1945-60?  Would you then regret leaving HCR completely up to the states?

I don't know if I'd really be opposed to HCR at the state level.

Should a state have the authority to make all doctors practicing within the state lines employees of the state government without any federal say?  Medical schools and their curricula/residency structure could change drastically, especially if it was CA or MA that did this.

Yes

[Free Palestine]

Maybe you have a very different perspective, but if you take the question of whether the government has a responsibility to provide health care for its citizens to be a moral question, why would the answer depend on the geography of the government?  If you believe that the government has the authority to mandate universal health care,  why should it matter whether it's one township or a global representative democracy?  I could see opposition to the extreme case of a global government doing it based on the freedom to leave/vote with your feet, but even at the national level in the US or another liberal democracy, those who want to leave are free to travel/move internationally.     

Because the federal government has no such Constitutional authority.  Go ahead and have an amendment passed, if you must.  The powers of the federal government are few and defined, but the powers of the state are vast and undefined.  That is what the law in this nation is, and it is wrong to twist it to accomplish a certain end.

[Free Palestine]

Because the federal government has no such Constitutional authority.  Go ahead and have an amendment passed, if you must.  The powers of the federal government are few and defined, but the powers of the state are vast and undefined.  That is what the law in this nation is, and it is wrong to twist it to accomplish a certain end.

This hasn't really been valid since McCulloch v. Maryland.. Actually it wasn't really valid before that as the creation of the First Bank of the United States, for example, showed.

So the federal government can grant itself new powers.  Nice.

[Free Palestine]

Well, the judge in VA just ruled it unconstitutional.

And he severed the Individual Mandate from basically everything else in the bill.

Aww