General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums4 judges upheld the ACA under all three possible theories for doing so, not just the taxing powers.
Read the whole ruling. It is very interesting. The more progressive justices all said it was ok both under the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause in addition to the taxation powers. Roberts said it was ok only under the taxation authority. Sadly, Kennedy, who sometimes behaves pretty moderately, joined the three assholes (Scalia, Alito, and Thomas) in saying it was ENTIRELY unconstitutional. That is SADLY surprising, because certainly even if the mandate had been struck down, the other parts should have remained. Nonetheless, the mandate was certainly constitutional under all three theories argued.
Under the commerce clause which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, Roberts and the other conservative justices said the mandate was not constitutional because it impelled commerce instead of regulating already-existing commerce. The more liberal justices said that under the commerce clause it was certainly constitutional because the healthcare market is very unique in that everyone, whether or not they have insurance, IS in this interstate market because anyone may need healthcare at any moment and everyone will absolutely need it at some point. It is not discretionary. And when someone doesn't have insurance but needs medical care, they will get it at emergency rooms which jacks up everyone else's premiums thus affecting interstate commerce given that many health plans are national plans, many people need healthcare when in other states, many go to other states for it, (and the medications covered by insurance are an interstate market). They are exactly right. The healthcare market is unique and everyone is certainly a part of it whether or not they have insurance. As to necessary and proper, yes the federal government has the right to enact laws necessary and proper for the good of the nation.
Good that Roberts was willing to support the mandate as a "tax", but he should have been able to support it under the other theories as well. Good though that he stuck to his seeming principle that laws or parts of laws should not be struck down absent compelling and obvious constitutional/precedent violations.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)It would've been so much easier to do it under the Commerce Clause. The wealthy uninsured (38% of uninsured are above median income) are a burden on the system.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)need it and WILL use this market at any given moment or at some time.
former9thward
(32,077 posts)We all need food, shelter, and clothing. Aren't those markets that we need and WILL use?
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)You're echoing the right wingers who are saying that mandating a basic health insurance plan is akin to mandating that someone buy a particular type of vegetable, such as broccoli, because it is healthy and we need to eat healthier which will be a benefit to society like everyone having health insurance.
But as the four reasoned justices stated, buying a basic health plan in order to knock out the "free ride" costs levied on the rest of those in the market by getting everyone in the risk pool is a very different situation. Failing to buy broccoli, or any other food item, does not place an additional financial burden on other consumers. (If anything that reduces demand thus reducing everyone else's costs which is just the opposite of not buying health insurance.) Also, there is no guarantee that the person will eat the mandated broccoli after it is purchased, prepare it properly, etc. in order to get the intended benefit wanted by the government. In addition, there is MUCH more discretion allowable within those other markets. You don't have to buy broccoli. You could buy many other vegetables, or vitamin supplements, etc. It is obvious therefore that the commerce clause could not micro-mandate such purchases, and to make such a comparison is absurd. With regard to healthcare, everyone will need it now or later, there is minimal discretion in what will be required to treat given ailments, and those who do not buy insurance create a large cost shift on to those who do. Yes, there are other markets in which we all must participate in one way or another, but they do not function like the healthcare market. Mandating a basic health insurance plan purchase is NOT the same as mandating other very specific purchases from other markets, whatsoever. It is a very different situation and set of dynamics given the nature of the market, injuries and illnesses that must be treated, what must be done to treat them, and the involvement of freemarket insurance plans as the payment instruments and how they operate. READ THE WHOLE RULING INCLUDING THE SECTION BY GINSBURG WHICH EXPLAINS ALL THIS.
former9thward
(32,077 posts)Just as you making strawmen ("echoing right wingers"
doesn't make your argument. Basically what you are saying is that the government would never mandate food, or a type of car, or a size of dwelling, etc. You accept that, I don't.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Sorry, but he still gets to burn in Hell.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Scalia is 76 years old. The old bastard needs to retire. He may well do so in a second Obama term. Then we can get a 5/4 progressive court and overrule that goddamned thing.
aquart
(69,014 posts)But I do so hope that Roberts now plans to make his existence a misery.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Maybe Scalia's ticker will start having problems. He's a pretty hefty old SOB. Maybe health problems will retire his ass. Here's hoping.
aquart
(69,014 posts)It's my dream.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Who knows what Kennedy was thinking. It is interesting that Roberts broke with the 3 "assholes".