American Health Care Reform

[Alkibiades]

Do you have any examples of opinions where the Supreme Court has denied the federal government the right to regulate commerce?"

Of course it could not uphold a 'right to regulate commerce'. The federal government can only regulate interstate commerce. The individual insurance mandate cannot be categorized as "regulation of commerce", because a key article of the "law" forces people who are not engaged in any commerce, interstate, intrastate, or international, to enter the market. This is simply not 'regulation'.

(Obama) called any attempt to negate legislation "unprecedented".

Because in his view, all of the legal precedents would favor upholding the law. Do you have any examples of opinions where the Supreme Court has denied the federal government the right to regulate commerce? It would be legally unprecedented, which is what all legal commentators (from both sides of the aisle) were saying before the actual hearing.

You are selectively quoting the President. He strongly suggested that the Court had no power to overturn a popular law, and he drew attention to its 'being an unelected group of people' with the clear intention of attempting to rhetorically strip it of its constitutional authority.

If the voters don't like it, they can elect people to change it-it's not like we are dealing with segregation here.

Oh, so that's the standard now. The Court can overturn the will of the people when the people are wrong, but when the people are right, the Court has no authority. That is an ingenious constitutional mechanism. They should just slide that up to the top of Article III....Why don't you guys just say that what you want is constitutional, and what you don't isn't? The way you all interpret the Constitution makes one wonder why the Founders didn't just stop with the Preamble, or just write, "What the people wants, the people gets! (So long as it is what I want, too)."

Um, because that is not what anyone was saying. Interesting interpretation of what I said, but not what I said at all. There is much more nuance, which I have no interest in debating or trying to explain.

No, the nuance is fine indeed. If it's "bad" (such as segregation), the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn the popular will, but if it is "good" or "bad, but not too bad" (Obamacare), then where does the Supreme Court get off telling the "people" what to do? Your standard is entirely subjective, or as you term it, nuanced beyond description. You just want the Court to rubber-stamp your personal preferences.

you can put me in the 'don't give a f*ck category....Your posts are great examples of the Fox-ization of debate...I don't have Jon Stewart's patience...

I think it's rather clear who is lowering the tone of debate here. I know using that kind of language is par for the course in political debate and with complete strangers nowadays, but I think it's uncalled for. Even Fox, as far as I know, doesn't sink that low.

[Gao Bohan]

Fine, fine, fine, so the "quite literally" was originally meant to suggest a direct cause and effect between "Republican victory" and the deaths of 40-100,000 "children and adults", but you are hesitating a bit now.[/quote[

Am I?

After all, there quite literally is probably a child in India right now who will not receive a meal and will most possibly die of literal starvation in the near to distant future, because I just spent NT$43 on one of those delicious 7-11 fruit platters instead of sending it to a charitable organization. Is that the degree of literalness we are talking about here?

Is that starving child in India currently relying on you for his meals? If not, I'm afraid your analogy does not hold water. I didn't even bother mentioning the 30 million uninsured Americans looking forward to guaranteed issue from insurance companies and assistance from the federal government starting in 2014. At least they are not presently relying on public assistance. I limited my example to the 50,000 high risk patients currently receiving medical care by the good graces of the American people (as represented by Congress and the President). Five signatures is all it takes to take away that care in an instant, and I stand by my position this may result in death. So yes, a Republican victory, and it would certainly be hailed as a victory if the ACA is tossed out, may result in some hundreds or even thousands of deaths. This seems fairly obvious, and not particularly clever on my part.

I appreciate the refresher course on Government. Though it may surprise you to learn that I was already familiar with the balance of power inherit to our system. Neither I, nor President Obama (and I feel rather embarassed at the comparison) doubt the Supreme Court's right to interpret the law. Indeed, the Court's interpretation is the only one that really counts. You seem to be reading a great deal of mal intent behind a few sentences spoken by the President. I shouldn't worry. President Obama taught constitutional law for ten years. I think it's safe to say he knows what the Court is for. Also, his administration recently positively responded to a federal appeals court order to reaffirm the Supreme Court's authority.

I'd like to thank you for responding here, as you have helped reinvigorate debate in this thread. I do hope the Supreme Court interprets this law as constitutional, though I don't really believe the justices can escape the political angle, no matter which decision they make. My view is that the two health care issues in the nation - escalating prices and insufficient coverage - are national problems that merit national solutions. I do think it's helpful to stop and consider that some form or another of universal health care is the international norm. Universal health care results in less spending per capita, less total spending as a percentage of the GDP, and more coverage than America's mixed public/private system. I have yet to see a convincing argument why it works to lower costs and expand coverage everywhere else but wouldn't work in the US. That's basically my starting position in these debates.

[Alkibiades]

Fine, fine, fine, so the "quite literally" was originally meant to suggest a direct cause and effect between "Republican victory" and the deaths of 40-100,000 "children and adults", but you are hesitating a bit now.[/quote[

Am I?

After all, there quite literally is probably a child in India right now who will not receive a meal and will most possibly die of literal starvation in the near to distant future, because I just spent NT$43 on one of those delicious 7-11 fruit platters instead of sending it to a charitable organization. Is that the degree of literalness we are talking about here?

Is that starving child in India currently relying on you for his meals? If not, I'm afraid your analogy does not hold water. I didn't even bother mentioning the 30 million uninsured Americans looking forward to guaranteed issue from insurance companies and assistance from the federal government starting in 2014. At least they are not presently relying on public assistance. I limited my example to the 50,000 high risk patients currently receiving medical care by the good graces of the American people (as represented by Congress and the President). Five signatures is all it takes to take away that care in an instant, and I stand by my position this may result in death. So yes, a Republican victory, and it would certainly be hailed as a victory if the ACA is tossed out, may result in some hundreds or even thousands of deaths. This seems fairly obvious, and not particularly clever on my part.

How does the analogy not hold water? My not giving the money to the Indian child will result in his death, won't it? If I pay, he lives; if I don't, he dies. That is the "result". Otherwise, you are saying that his death results from my failure to provide for him only inasmuch as I had kept him alive prior to that. That is an especially labyrinthine form of casuistry.

And, let's be serious, shall we? I think you know exactly what the point is. Your insistence on linking "Republican victory" to the death of children is motivated by demagoguery, not objectivity.

Is it not your purpose to make sure that your opponents are seen to have blood on their hands? That's what this is about. The spiral of demagoguery practiced by both sides, no less terrible for being cloaked in Mandarin thinktanknese.

[Gao Bohan]

The US Supreme Court will decide on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act on Thursday.

[housecat]

ACA upheld in a 6-3 decision.

[Dr. McCoy]

CNN, of course, got it exactly wrong. They were announcing how it was struck down. I turned to the BBC and got the right story. What a bunch of clowns.

[cranky laowai]

ACA upheld in a 6-3 decision.

5-4, actually. But either way, it was upheld.

[Chris]

Woohoo! Time to celebrate!

[Gao Bohan]

Alright!!!! Upheld on a 5-4 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts!!!

[BigJohn]

Alright!!!! Upheld on a 5-4 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts!!!

Interesting to see the court divide into an unpredicted majority and minority. I mean, it shows that the SC isn't as political as people have been saying recently.