Sixth Circuit Upholds Individual Mandate In ACA As Constitutional

[alp227]

Source: TalkLeft.com

The minimum coverage provision regulates activity that is decidedly economic. In Raich, the Supreme Court explained that “‘conomics’ refers to ‘the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.’” Id. at 25 (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966)). Consumption of health care falls squarely within Raich’s definition of economics, and virtually every individual in this country consumes these services. Individuals must finance the cost of health care by purchasing an insurance policy or by self-insuring, cognizant of the backstop of free services required by law. By requiring individuals to maintain a certain level of coverage, the minimum coverage provision regulates the financing of health care services, and specifically the practice of self-insuring for the cost of care. The activity of foregoing health insurance and attempting to cover the cost of health care needs by self-insuring is no less economic than the activity of purchasing an insurance plan. Thus, the financing of health care services, and specifically the practice of self-insuring, is economic activity.

Read more: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2011/6/29/123325/293

---

Decision: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0168p-06.pdf

[naaman fletcher]

1. Bummer

The individual mandate is the biggest scam ever. The insurance companies (who are exempt from anti-trust laws) got congress to mandate that everyone has to buy their shitty, overpriced product.

[No Elephants]

6. Irony is, they were originally exempt from antitrust laws because they started out as not for profit

organizations. Lot has changed since then, but, of course, they never lost the exemption.

[hakko936]

2. It doesn't matter until.....

....it gets to the SC. The rest is just going through the process.

[No Elephants]

7. SCOTUS has many reasons to love this law.

Republicans favor doctors, rich folk who can well afford to comply with the individual mandate if they need to, and big business, be it big PHRMA or big health care providers or big health insurers--all the same suspects with whom Obama tried to meet in secret in the earliest months of his Presidency.

And, when it comes to people who cannot afford to comply, well, as to them, Republicans are all in favor of "personal responsibility."

And this Republican dream law was passed by Democrats, so it is a good opportunity for the SCOTUS to show they are not as partisan as most (all) of their decisions make them appear.

[Uncle Joe]

8. They will approve it as well, the majority support corporate supremacy and this is an ongoing gift

to the for profit "health" insurance corporations, which will institutionalize the dysfunctional and redundant for profit "health" insurance system here in the U.S.

As a result the for profit "health" insurance corporations will have the people by the short hairs even more so than they do now.

[Scurrilous]

3. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Xithras]

4. The score is now 3 and 2 in the federal courts. The Supremes are going to call this one.

Three federal courts say it's legal. Two say it's illegal. There's no way the USSC can pass on this case.

[alp227]

5. A GW Bush nominee wrote much of this decision

"A key part of the ruling was written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton -- a President George W. Bush -- appointee and considered a conservative on the court. He said the health care field is different from other streams of "commerce."" --CNN

Sutton also was supported by Boyce Martin (Carter), and the Reagan-nominated James Graham made a slight dissent

[No Elephants]

9. I'm not shocked. Please see Reply 7.

[askeptic]

10. So if 'not-buying' a thing constitute's 'economic activity', and can therefore

be regulated, including the decision to buy or not to buy, then why isn't that justification for forcing us to buy a whole host of commercial products? This is contorted reasoning in the extreme, and goes way beyond the intent of the Commerce clause.

[christx30]

11. This is an absolutely chilling

ruling. That means that anything in the world can be forced upon us. If the government says that the country needs to do it, then we have no choice. Not enough houses are being bought, then they can tell us that we have to buy a house, or fine us for being unwilling/unable to.
They can prop up any business that is not getting enough customers. Newspapers are dying? No problem. How about a $5 fine each day that someone fails to buy a news paper, or does not have a subscription.
Just because a tyrant in a black robe says something is legal, doesn't mean it is. We just have to fire every rep and senator that voted this thing in and elect people that will repeal it.

[Bill McBlueState]

12. nothing new here

You get a tax break for owning a house or having kids; now you'll get a tax break for having health insurance. The tax code is routinely used to encourage certain choices. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is.

[christx30]

13. If I can't afford it

I'm still not going to buy it. I'm not going to give up what little I have for something I'll probably never use.
I'm still hoping that it gets struck down and they have to go back to the drawing board.
If they want the extra taxes, they're going to have to come get them from me personally.