I’m intrigued by the “ripening” argument.

i.e., decline to rule now on asserted tax penalty “harms” that won’t begin to occur until 2015.

Think somebody needs to find a photo of the current Supreme Court. My eyes aren’t what they used to be, but I can’t find Elena Kagan anywhere, and somebody looks disturbing like the now-retired Justice Souter.

I’v e been looking forward to this and dreading it. Kind of like losing one engine while flying. Will we make it? This court of last resort scares me. Is anyone out there optimistic about the outcome of this case other than government-hating conservatives?

I would like to know where my obligation to support a private health insurance company is spelled out in the Constitution.

I think that the Court will issue a bittersweet decision. They are corporate whores, so they will rule in what’s best for health insurance companies and big pharma. The ACA is a deeply flawed bill that won’t ever achieve it’s goal. Eventually the only option will be single payer. However, anything that will drive the GOP to foam at the mouth is a good thing, so I hope they let the bill stand.
Employer supported health insurance rates have risen by 9% this year, much of that cost being passed over to their employees. With wages stagnating and healthcare costs going up there has to be a breaking point, and both parties seem to be ignoring that.Eventually the govt. will have to take over the system.

Conservatives love the mandate. It seems it was their idea in the first place. They just don’t like the (feeble) regulation part and the subsidy (through tax credits?) part.

I think the only source of hope would be the societal outrage once republicans and democrats alike make the mandate happen in 2014, the insurance companies get even greedier and charge even more for insurance because people are forced to buy, they can get around minimum MLR by reclassifying administrative expenses as medical expenses, and they can collude with each other to keep prices high and rising.

That’s just the nature of evil. Once they get more successful, they become increasingly delusional regarding what they can get away with. Let’s hope everybody is paying attention before they kill more patients by raising premiums and denying care to people who paid all that time.

I’d gladly have my tax dollars spent in re-training all of the health insurance company paper pushers into new careers. Once the Blue Crosses and Wellpoints of the world are dismantled we will be the better for it. They provide value ONLY to their stock holders.

It is in there look again…only it’s the Corporate Constitution…you must sell your soul for the benefit of the Corporations.

The DOJ is an arm of the Corporate powers folks,same as the WH along with the Supreme Court.

In short,we have been effed.

5-3 to uphold. Kagan recusing.

Thomas, Alito, Scalia dissenting.

I would like to know where they get the authority to CREATE commerce. I understand they have the authority to REGULATE it. But does REGULATING commerce include CREATING it when it’s absent???

IMO it’s a clear no. I don’t think I’d be going out too far on a limb to claim that there is no way in hell that’s what the framers had in mind when they wrote the commerce clause, since they, you know, had just rebelled from a King that had forced all kinds of unpleasant economics on them.

This is BULLSHIT.

Eventually the govt. will have to take over the system.

I hope you’re right.

Seems to me we’ll have more health insurance type executives working alongside politicians ensuring that the private corporation interests are merged with the federal government’s power.

Everyone needs health care.

Health care is commerce.

Risking your getting angry with me again, but that’s my take.

“I would like to know where they get the authority to CREATE commerce.”
___

I would like to know where they get the authority to CREATE an Air Force. I only see the words “army” and “navy.”

I haven’t yet been angry with you. WTF???

I spelled out my angst regarding another poster, but not you.

Sorry, I don’t understand.

I understand you disagree, and that’s ok. I disagree with you too. I don’t beleive my disagreeing has made you angry with me though.

Whatever. Still not angry with you, but I am confused.

Alrighty, OFG, then I misunderstood. What do you think of my response though?

I don’t think that argument would fly, since originally the air force was part of one of those and they merely removed them and made them an independant service.

But whatever. I can see no one has a problem with interpreting the Constitution to say Congress can force it’s citizens to purchase anything it wants anytime it wants. I have a BIG problem with that, and believe there’s no way in hell that’s what the framers intended.

You’re misinterpreting some people’s reaction.

I have a big problem with it too, I wager most of us do, and absolutely don’t believe it aligns with original intent.

Absolutely Right.

Individual Mandate does not even show up in Commerce definition which is a totally a voluntary activity where the buyer and seller are happy after the transaction of the goods and services. Nobody can force someone to buy something one does not like.

Individual Mandate will go out with 9-0 ruling with certain section of the SCOTUS playing to the gallery for a change on behalf of the American people.

I think it’s weak. But I think that is ultimately what will decide the issue.

There is no doubt that folks who can’t afford health insurance or health care affect the overall health care commerce when they show up in the ER and then can’t pay for their care. For them, I think the argument you make holds up.

But for SELF PAY patients, who do NOT skip out on payments, they have merely CHOSEN not to participate in the health insurance market and pay their fees directly to their providers, do not adversely affect the health care market when they skip out on the health insurance.

So, again, can the state force people who are not participating in the health insurance market, and are not affecting the health care market, become active in the commerce of health insurance. I submit no, that there is no constitutional authority for the state to force commerce in the absence of it.

Plus I don’t think it’s outrageous to believe that there may be people, in a country of 300 million, that NEVER enter the health care market. Perhaps for religious reasons, they believe God will heal them or perhaps some other reasons, luck for instance, they never get sick or hurt in their entire lives and die in their sleep at home.

No one can argue that those people are in any participating in the health care market. So AGAIN, can the state force them too? I just don’t believe CREATING commerce is the same as REGULATING it.

Health Insurance does not equal health care.

I’m not buying it.

progress, are you capable of understanding that your economics class definition of commerce is not a legal one?

One of those justices is going to recuse herself so 9-0 is impossible right from the start. The current SCotUS next to never will side against corporate interests which even makes 8-1 a hoot and a half.

Conservatives love the mandate. It seems it was their idea in the first place.

Nope. I believe they hate it much more than you can believe.

They did more quixotic things one can imagine when they controlled two branches of the government in the first 6 years of this century. They did not attempt horrible idea of individual mandates even one iota.
None of the Republicans sided for this.

Faster this individual mandates goes away better is for the quality of the political discussion in the country. If SCOTUS removes this in June 2012 better it is for the country and Democratic party or else we can expect a Republican Sweep to dismantle the whole ACA thing.

Commerce as commonly defined and understood is a Voluntary exchange of goods and/or services and after the transaction both the buyer and seller are Happy that they got a good deal with that transaction.

That is the beauty of Free Market Commerce where both Buyer and Seller are Happy after the Voluntary Transaction.

I agree with nearly all of your argument, except that choosing not to participate in the health insurance market effects the risk pool, I think I said that how I meant. Anyway, that people exempt themselves effects the rest of us through maybe outright higher costs to participants and when those people who pay out of pocket end up unable to do so. If someone chooses not to go get health care when they need it, that could effect us all, for example, they don’t show up for work or even possibly pass on something infectious.

Just trying to think this through together?

“Everyone needs health care.
Health care is commerce.”

Healthcare and health insurance are two different things. Taking it as red that everyone needs healthcare, it doesn’t mean you accomplish that by mandating people buy something that is only tangentially related. Those who don’t have health insurance can still go and pay for needed healthcare, while conversely those with health insurance can’t necessarily get the healthcare they need.

I agree. This image appears to be current…

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Supreme_Court_US_2010.jpg/350px-Supreme_Court_US_2010.jpg

I’ve gotta believe that if the Obama administration is fast tracking this, that they’ve got a reason to believe they’ll win.

So I’m bracing for the unthinkable.

That for the first time in history, the state can force all of it’s citizens to purchase goods and services from other private entities. Next time there’s a need for an auto bailout, just mandate we all purchase a GM, Ford, or Chyrsler car. The economy is in a recession due to lack of demand??? No problem, we’ll just mandate that folks go out and consumre every penny to their name to kickstart the economy.

This is such bullshit. And the most disgusting and despicable thing about it is how “Democrats” are defending it. Can you imagine those same “Democrats” had George W Bush and the R Congress passed a mandate that we all use Haliburton security forces to protect our neighborhoods? Yet at the end of the day, there’s no real difference in that and what’s happening here. Yet I’d bet millions to a donut hole that those “Democrats” would’ve been completely unhinged had W and the R’s done something like that.

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT

You refuse to answer me every time I ask. Maybe you will this time? Where is this magical place you call the free market?

That may be textbook economics but does not make it law or the legal interpretation. Words matter. If you want to argue law, you have to respect that it’s a separate field.

“I agree with nearly all of your argument, except that choosing not to participate in the health insurance market effects the risk pool”

We aren’t talking about Medicare here, but rather about the profits of some private business, which that is irrelevant to actual healthcare. The profit or loss of WellPoint is a tangential side issue, not something that should be placed front and center.

“Anyway, that people exempt themselves effects the rest of us through maybe outright higher costs to participants and when those people who pay out of pocket end up unable to do so”

You don’t need insurance to see a doctor, nor does having insurance mean you will see a doctor. The uninsured can be reducing costs while the insured raise costs as mandate is just a check for the insurance companies, not something any sort of activity on behalf of the person.

“If someone chooses not to go get health care when they need it, that could effect us all, for example, they don’t show up for work or even possibly pass on something infectious.”

Yes and the mandate doesn’t require people to get actual healthCARE as that is a different thing from just having health insurance.

Again, using that logic there is NO LIMIT to what the state can mandate. Breathing air means that we all affect the amount of oxygen in the air. Eating food means we all affect the food commerce. Just being alive means we affect something somewhere such that every part of our lives, every part of living, can be regulated.

I just DO NOT believe that’s the law. And I absolutely believe it goes against the framers’ intent. But I just don’t that it’s being that broadly interpreted today.

The 11th Circuit wasn’t the only court to rule against it’s constutionality you know. Originally, my state’s action (Virginia) won the first round and it was declared unconstituional IIRC.

Are all of those folks acting in bad faith or are they showing goodwill disagreements over how broadly the commerce clause can reach?? I just don’t believe for a second that it’s only bad faith causing these conclusions. In fact, if I’m not mistaken (which I might be), the two judges in the 11th circuit that ruled it unconstitutional were DEMOCRATICALLY appointed judges. I think. If so, do you really believe they’re letting politics decide their reading of the law?? I don’t.

I agree. Health insurance isn’t health care, but many people use insurance as the gateway.

Health insurance shouldn’t even exist except for maybe things like luxury care in really fancy hotel style rooms, single occupancy, what have you.

Expect the American people to be enslaved, via premiums paid to tax exempt public charities, known as BCBS, under fear of punitive tax penalties levied by both IRS and state revenue departments. Lets call this corporate segregation. Where the cry of state’s right utilized by the slave owner to perpetuate servitude to the economic interest of the master is now utilized by corporations, specifically state based health insurance corporations, to historically deny coverage under the color of law, while extracting outrageous premiums, and enslaving Americans to corporations. Abolish heath insurance corporation as we abolished the slaveowner.

The model is not applicable to healthcare as it is applicable to property insurance. Everyone dies. Everyone does not get in a car accident? Everyone does not suffer a property loss? Take the billion plus dollars of economic value squandered out the tailpipe of America’s cars everyday and use it to fund healthcare and education, rather than lining the pockets of Exxon Mobile. America does not need to be in servitude to another corporate interest using money extracted from the governed, to buy law which protects their interests and business models, while fucking people under the “legitimate government interests doctrine,”or “free market principles,” because government is bought by corporate money? The undue influence of money on the political process and slavery go hand in hand. As a proponent of Slavery, Thanks Justice Taney for Dred Scott decision and America’s civil. war?

The new American life Tax/Enslavement to corporations under fear of punitive tax penalty, because you exist and government cannot effectively control for profit and tax exempt corporations treated as public charities, from insurance to providers, who cannibalize and capitalize on the unfortunate circumstances of human’s or those who got a bad deal in the luck of the genetic draw? We did not get healthcare reform. We got servitude to corporations and modern day fugitive slave laws, to protect corporate and their profit, not human beings or slaves!

All that said, I agree with you that the end result may be it being ruled constitutional. But if the ruling is unanimous or nearly unanimous then I’ll be convinced that that is indeed the state of the law today.

However, if it’s a divided decision, then IMO we can still claim they got it wrong. After all, I feel VERY STRONGLY they got the Heller case completely wrong. That one was 5-4, with all the usual suspects on each side.

Agreed on all counts I think.

I was addressing how whether someone purchases health insurance (or not) effects commerce.

I’m not saying my argument is strong, just saying how I think it will stand up to being challenged.

I have children who could not possibly afford to buy health insurance. Will I be visiting them in Jail? Will we next be told what kind of car we have to drive etc?
IANAL, but this seems illegal to me. Millions of people won’t be able to do this – will they ALL go to jail? I doubt that this is even enforceable.

Hey folks… you know those reconstruction amendments? They where not just for the benefit of the emancipated slave! It was for poor white folk also!! Slavery was constitutional at one time also! Its great when corporate conspires with government to eviscerate law designed to prevent the governed from becoming subordinate to corporation who buy law? How do you think the slave owners perpetuated slavery? The answer: Money and compromised Justices like Roger B. Taney!

I don’t know. I’m trying to make sense of all this myself.

The last discussion, jeopardydd explained that there are exceptions. I’m no lawyer, he or she is.

On a couple points, you confused me though.

Breathing air means that we all affect the amount of oxygen in the air.

We don’t have anything like a public utility for air but clean air is indeed regulated. Quite a bit of controversy there even very recently.

Eating food means we all affect the food commerce.

Yes, it is regulated, not even close to well enough.

Just being alive means we affect something somewhere such that every part of our lives, every part of living, can be regulated.

On this point you lost me, really confused me.

Tell that to the IRS or a state revenue department who levy the punitive financial tax penalty? It is unconstitutional on its face! Just like slavery……..

If for example Democrats and Republicans agreed on something, that would make it right? I’m confused on the logic of that. I don’t see how the scoreboard is a good measure of anything necessarily.

I don’t have the kind of faith you do in the state of law or the SCotUS. :)

Sorry. The National Security Act of 1947 created a USAF as a separate defense entity. According to a “textualist” reading of the Constitution, Congress lacked that authority (not that it’s ever been challenged).

My point? We mostly holler about this or that being “unconstitutional” when it’s simply something we don’t like. MOST of the things we deal with as a society have no textual basis in the Constitution.

Having pushed back on all of that, I am no fan of the PPACA. Color me Single Payer.

On this point you lost me, really confused me.

Sorry.

What I mean is that given that we eat food all of our lives, and that the food industry indirectly affects other industries, which indirectly affects other industries, etc. etc. etc. then there are no real limits on the commerce clause (other than acts that may violate another part of the constitution).

They can mandate we purchase disposable diapers as a baby, mandate we purchase computers as a student, mandate we purchase a car as an adult, and mandate we purchase life insurance, a house, specific furniture, etc. Then as we age they can mandate we purchase long term care insurance, 10 bottles of geritol a week, etc.

They can mandate we purchase alchohol to help that industry, no matter if you don’t beer or any other alchohol.. There would be effectively no limits on what they can mandate from birth to death. Again, I just don’t believe that’s the law. That it’s that broad even today. And, again, I feel I know damn well that goes against the framers’ intent.

And, since our health is affected by what we eat, they can mandate we eat our peas once a week. Not just purchase the peas, but mandate that we eat them. Because they’re good for us. Mandate that we purchase and eat broccoli, pissing off George H.W. Bush. Mandate that we eat three meals a week of fish. Etc. etc. etc.

Viewing it that broad means they can not only mandate the commerce itself, but can mandate basically every behaviour from birth to death. Population falling, affecting the economy? Mandate folks have kids.

There would be no real limits on where it can go.

No, absolutely not.

I guess I’m suggesting that when the put the robes on they’re supposed to be judges then and no longer Democrats and Republicans. As judges, if the vote is unanimous or nearly so then I’ve gotta believe they see that as the law today. I still won’t agree with it, but I’ll be convinced that yes, the commerce clause is indeed that broad according to the LAW, not according to Democrats or Republicans.

If the decision is split, then it does bring up questions IMO. It’s not nearly as decided as we thought.

Republicans and Democrats agree on lots of things that aren’t right. I’m just saying if the decision is broadly agreed upon that IMO that’s an indication they relied on the state of the law today rather than being a Democrat or Republican.

EDIT: BTW, I’ve been accused of shouting before because I use all caps to emphasize words. Maybe that’s why you thought I was angry??? I don’t mean to be shouting, I just use the caps to try and emphasize words in my argument.

Everyone needs health care, health care is commerce, so the government can enthrone an oligopoly of private bureaucratic intermediaries and everyone can be obliged to buy their paper “product.”

Yes, and the Constitution grants the state the power to provide for the common defense. Perhaps that’s where the constitutional authorization is. If it is deemed that an Air Force is required to provide for the common defense (which it is IMO), then IMO they’ve got constitutional authority right there to create an Air Force.

If one day it becomes necessary to field a Space Force to provide for the common defense, then IMO they’ll have the constutional authority to create a Space Force.

BTW, there is already a Space Command in the Air Force. Just like the Air Force came from another service, if it ever got to the point of needing a Space Force then it too would come from, in this case, the Air Force.

Individual Mandate has no place in Commerce where in the Commerce it is totally a voluntary transaction between two parties and both parties feel rewarded after exchange of goods and/or services. Individual Mandate is penalty for not participating in the transaction. It has no place in the commerce definition.

Individual Mandate is not a TAX because we are NOT casting Votes in the board member selection of AHIP & Pharma which are for-profit institutions.

Government can Levy Tax if it is providing service as a single payer solution because we elect the representatives who oversee it. Courts will accept that and honor it.

Answering your question, Free Market is not some magical place. It is something we encounter everyday. For example from a wide range of bread loaf choices in supermarket when we buy one loaf we feel it provides quality for our dollar. Manufacturer who is able to make that sale feels rewarded that he got a good deal and makes more bread. If the manufacturer does not make a sale he knows either he is charging too much, do cost control and lower costs for that loaf of bread or the loaf of bread is of poor quality which he has to fix or else if he sits doing nothing the competition will obliterate his business.
Ultimately consumers get good quality of loaf of bread and the hard-working manufacturer gets to increase the market share and get more profits. This is the beauty of free market and we see it everyday in our lives. That has what made America great. Free Market has its own weakness which Pres. Theodore Roosevelt in my opinion has correctly fixed with his suggestions of Progressive Taxation and Estate Taxes.

which doesn’t necessarily include health care.

Exactly the point. Individual Mandates will destroy our economy long term by rewarding service inefficiency with consumers and lobbying efficiency with policy makers.

Worse thing is it will set such a bad precedent if other companies follow this example our whole economy and society will become uncompetitive and disintegrate.

I agree. I read the court case.

@forest.

“Everyone needs health care.

Health care is commerce.”

Everyone doesn’t buy healthcare if they can’t afford it. Health care is different that Health Insurance.

“I was addressing how whether someone purchases health insurance (or not) effects commerce.”

You can’t regulate commerce based on purchases that don’t happen, or purchases that would have been made if someone did purchase health care. It’s a different product. Whether someone buys care or not it doesn’t affect commerce for insurance.

You are forcefully creating a market where one didn’t exist.

…

liked your post except for this;

Answering your question, Free Market is not some magical place. It is something we encounter everyday. For example from a wide range of bread loaf choices in supermarket when we buy one loaf we feel it provides quality for our dollar. Manufacturer who is able to make that sale feels rewarded that he got a good deal and makes more bread. If the manufacturer does not make a sale he knows either he is charging too much, do cost control and lower costs for that loaf of bread or the loaf of bread is of poor quality which he has to fix or else if he sits doing nothing the competition will obliterate his business.
Ultimately consumers get good quality of loaf of bread and the hard-working manufacturer gets to increase the market share and get more profits. This is the beauty of free market and we see it everyday in our lives. That has what made America great. Free Market has its own weakness which Pres. Theodore Roosevelt in my opinion has correctly fixed with his suggestions of Progressive Taxation and Estate Taxes.

nonsense

there is no such thing as a free market, it cannot exist, it never has, it never will, the concept is pure propaganda by corporatists who do not want to pay their own bills

in a “free market” (which cannot exist) big buys small, big puts small out of business, big raises prices and lowers quality as far as they can.

now to point out;.

once you believe in ” a sanctity of contract” you all of a sudden like those regulations and you are no longer a “free marketeer”

once you believe in ownership you all of a sudden like regulations and you are no longer a “free marketeer”

once you believe in adjudication or laws, you all of a sudden like regulations and you are no longer a free marketeer

once you believe in a monetary system, (another set of regulations) you are no longer a free marketeer

there is NO such thing as a “free market”, ALL markets RELY on regulations

the mythical “free marketeer” WANTS the regulations that help him gather profit but does NOT want those that force him into paying his own bills

free market…no…such…thing

I see you have recognized at least that “there are limitations” to a free market

that limitations is thus;

it has the same limitations as other fantasy, it is a bigger fantasy then the fairy god mother

However, anything that will drive the GOP to foam at the mouth is a good thing, so I hope they let the bill stand

I prefer not to be coerced into buying a product; it’s another abrogation of my civil liberties when they are already under such severe attack — just to make the GOP foam at the mouth. I could care less which power obsessed party rules, it’s the outcome that matters.

It reminds me of an article I read recently, The Seneca effect.

Where by industries such as oil and insurance off set thier polution, in insurance terms risk, for easing thier decline.

in a “free market” (which cannot exist) big buys small, big puts small out of business, big raises prices and lowers quality as far as they can.

That is why we have Sherman Anti-trust law.

As far as I am concerned USA has found solutions like Progressive Taxation, Estate Taxes, Social Security, Glass Steagall Act etc for all the weakness of the free market but the problem is enforcement and having right people at the right place.

But still I see once too often every year a nimble small more innovative company putting a big company out of business. That is Free Market at work where innovation is rewarded and consumers get benefitted as a result.

first of all, the anti trust laws are not enforced and second of all, once you believe in them you are no longer a free marketeer

there is no such thing as a free market, it cannot exist

But still I see once too often every year a nimble small more innovative company putting a big company out of business. That is Free Market at work where innovation is rewarded and consumers get benefitted as a result.

more often then not you see the big company buy the innovative company though sometimes magic does occur, it is NOT becuase of a “free market” which can not exist, it’s because of the regulations that allowed the small company a venue to compete against the big

there is NO such thing as a free market, what you are doing is demonstrating the benefits of a regulated market not a free market

once again, without regulations there isn’t even such thing as ownership, it’s who’s gun is bigger and that’s who owns it

you have suggested you do indeed agree with regulations that pervent corporate abuse, you are not a free marketeer even though you think you are, and you are not describing beneficial economic events in a free market you are describing events in a regulated market

anyway, off to bed

When I mentioned Free Market and its beauty I already stated that it has its own set of weakness as any system would have. In addition USA has found solutions for all the weakness with this setup going through painful episodes of economy downturn.

We have the right setup but as you mentioned it is the enforcement and right people doing it are the issue right now.

With the current state of civilization progress we are in free market is still the best system we can have spurring quality delivery of good and services for all in my opinion.

But still I see once too often every year a nimble small more innovative company putting a big company out of business.

Is that a typo?

How often does larger industry qualsh small innovation for competitive reasons?

Madison and Jefferson where all over this shit. They did not want money in politics. Madison and Jefferson wanted restrictions on corporate charters. Unless a corporation demonstrated a tangible benefit to society and the republic the charter would expire. So do you think wasting .80 cents of every dollar we spend on gasoline, blown right out our tailpipes, to the tune of over a billion dollars a day is beneficial to America and the Republic???? Funny how slaves where exploited for energy? We have come a long way haven’t we?

Let me give couple of examples taking big name examples:

Yahoo Trumping Alta-Vista, Then Google Trumping Yahoo …….

Whole Foods Trumping Traditional Grocery Chains with value food ….

Chipotle Trumping Taco Bell with better food ….

Ask oneself who is getting benefitted in this competition. It is consumers and our economy absolutely.

Problem is Government needs to make sure Dominant player does not Interfere and Stop Smaller players from innovating. That is why we have Sherman Anti-trust Act. Right now we have issue with enforcement.

Money in the politics is what not enabling enforcement of the solutions we learnt in a hard way and not having right people heading the right departments.

So rather than liberating America via innovation and advancement we stagnate an economy by protecting inefficiencies, established cash cows, via lies and misrepresentations enslaving a nation to….

That is why I am glad that America as a whole is at state of civilization that it intuitively believes the individual mandates is a totally wrong idea and hate it so much. That is a good thing out of all this.

I’ll give you the counter argument; Large media conglomerates. It offers me many choices, non that I want.

Anyway, I feel we digress.

Erie Canals better than ox and Wagon?

Volvo better mpg than Ford Mustang?

A woman’s right to use birth control opposed to being, barefoot and pregnant?

Viagra vs being limp? Let’s call it progress until it “upsets” vested overweight ways of doing business, pompous cash cows, which provide limited value, in spite of lies amplified by……money! Like…….. “…smoking does not cause cancer!”

Got that right. Ply MMS with drugs and hookers and you get BP oil disaster where fucking douche bags like DeMint protecing BP??????

Monopolies do not want consumers to have choice. We are pigeon-holed like Pavlov’s dog!

*Fetch the stick boy!*

The Supreme Court ruled that someone who grows marijuana for personal use – no money or goods exchanged between two parties and the pot staying within one state – falls under the Commerce Clause. It would seem that with a good imagination, one could argue that just about anything falls under the Commerce Clause.

Here is the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit - State of Florida v. HHS which said that the Mandate exceeds the Feds authority.

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/ca11/201111021.pdf

Page 99
V. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
UNDER THE COMMERCE POWER

That was pretty stupid, but an argument to connect these situations would be buying insurance on the black market rather that the legal market. If I bought pot on the black market it might affect the supply/price on the legal market. And where the interstate market is affected by the local market is due to the mobility of the people and ease in which they cross borders.

That requires “activity” to regulate under the Commerce Clause.

I don’t see how it relates to an individual mandate.

On edit @ Louis @ 68

Mandate without PO or single payer,very cunning,i see, politicians with pockets full of money.

Yes.

Free market ==> unstable, goes to monopoly.

Regulation of MJ with the commerce clause is referred to in the opinion I linked to.
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/ca11/201111021.pdf

The mandate subjects us to the price-fixing tyranny of syndicated monopolies.There is no free-market magic,just health -care cartels that form to avert the costs of competition.Obamacare is nothing more than a privatization scheme that creates a consumer base by fiat and provides the gateway to profitize all health care sectors.The austerity scam wlll granulate subsidies into antiquity and the budget-busting costs of monopoly extortion will require further cuts in entitlements.To go through the appellate process as opposed to implementing the public option,confirms that Obama imposed a dastardly bait and switch.

Exactly right. Even though Free Market is the best available model for our current state of society, one of the major weakness of the free market is tendency to go to Monopoly state.
That is why we have the solution of Anti-trust law which is a really good one.

I consider Pres. Theodore Roosevelt as having saved us from the tyranny of Far Left or Far Right Governments with his Trust Busting Enforcement. If he did not do that we might have ended up with a totally unnecessary pain and suffering period at the hands of a totalitarian government.

Right now we have issue with enforcement due to money in politics. Eg. TBTF institutions. BTW ACA law itself is a good example of what happens when TBTF institutions are allowed to expand. They stifle innovation, destroy the society, its spirit and sense of freedom and they have the gall of putting mandates on people and say inactivity is constitutional, forcing one to involuntary purchase an unaffordable crappy commodity with the strange convoluted definition of commerce. We really need another Pres. Theodore Roosevelt right now with trust busting before this parasite of big institutions expands in various sectors and destroy our whole economy.

Thats why we go to alternate sites which make logical sense like some articles in Rolling stones etc. to get our news. We have a choice. Sometime I listen to one or two conglomerates just to see whether they are trying to get on a better path out of curiosity. Now a days if it does not sound logical to me I simply rule it out as paid news.

Conglomerates have simply took wrong path and instead of doing something right for our future and make a better generation they spew out nonsense for short-term cash infusion eg. How many conglomerates covered SEC paper shredding which is a serious issue. I know of one which covered today a pie sale in detail as a major topic in news. Sooner or later results of their actions catch up with them. Either they will lose consumers and society remains in a better shape or they keep consumers and then they have to live in a crappy society they themselves played a role in its creation.