JMS synopsis of the Obama Care Supreme Court Hearings..

[ABQCOWBOY]

Actually I've hread both Roberts and Kennedy may be in play. Both are conservatives but are potentially modereate on this issue.

Based on what has transpired today, I would not feel real good about that. Anything can happen but the idea that they would bless this Law as Constitutional outright is pretty slim IMO.

So the issue is if it's a tax teh supreme court can hear the case today. If it's a pennelty then the supreme court would have to wait 2 years to hear the case because nobody would have standing until the mandate actually takes effect. That was the topic on day one.

No, as you said, that has already been discussed. Today, the questioning appears to be much more towards determining if the Law is Constitutional and if there is any way to strip the parts that are unconstitutional and leave the Law in place. At least, that is what I am reading.

Nope.. the government can tax you, and can also penalize you. The issue is only important because it can potentially take away the supreme courts standing to hear the case now.

Completely wrong. The Government can certainly Tax you but this penalty is not a Tax and that's a problem. The Government can Penalize you but not for failing to purchase something that is mandated with no recourse by the Government. That's what is being argued now.

---------- Post added March-28th-2012 at 01:49 PM ----------

In-Trade had 38% chance the mandate would be overturned before yesterday. Now it's over 60%. After the last two days, I think conservatives are much more confident that 1) the mandate will not stand and 2) major portions of the law, if not the entire law, will be overturned.

I think that they are going to find that a forced mandate is unconstitutional. If that happens, then the Law is dead. If you can't force the mandate, you can't fund it unless you make it a Tax and you will never pass a Tax under this Administration. You are not likely, IMO, to see a super majority in Congress and in the White House any time soon so this would effectively kill the Law IMO. I think that you would be forced to start over and unless this President wins re-election (and that is probably unlikely if the major piece of his Presidency gets overturned), then the ideas behind a practical Health Care plan go back to a more Conservative approach in all likelihood. That is not to say that something can't be done. In fact, I'd say that the pressure to find a solution will be even more pressing. This could very well force both sides to come to an agreement on the issue. However, I doubt you see single payer or a mandated approach ratified.

I will tell you that while I understand many of you believe that Conservatives or Republicans will simply fall in line with whatever the GOP trotts out there, I do not believe that to be true. The Tea Party, Conservatives and many Republicans are going to take the position of, "We have done our part, Obamacare is dead, now come up with a plan that works or you will meet the same fate." The Right is not going to just accept same old BS either IMO. They may not agree with Single Payer or Mandate but we do agree that the damn thing is broken and it needs to be fixed. Goes without saying that the Left will hammer any plan that doesn't meet their desires so there is going to be plenty of pressure on whomever has the responsibility to come up with a plan to make it a workable one.

I am very hopeful that what comes from all of this is a lasting resolution of sorts.

[Pick6]

So in my building they just finished this new office.

[ATTACH]46512[/ATTACH]

[ABQCOWBOY]

CNN: "This Is A Train Wreck For The Obama Administration!" Jeff Toobin On Healthcare Supreme Court"

Youtube link on Supreme Court Hearings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SiF0SWdypw&feature=player_embedded#!

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This is interesting. Personally, I find it very hard to believe that President Obama didn't understand the ramifications of not using a Tax to craft this Law. As I recall, they tried to do a single payer Bill and lost, is that not correct? At that time, he had a super majority and could not get it passed if memory serves. I think the President knew that the only way he could get this done would be to mandate it. This is not a stupid man we are talking about here. I think he knew and gambled.

Tulane, do you not see this as a bigger issue? Do you not see this as rule of precedents that opens the door for Government to enact even more aggressive mandates in other parts of day to day life? I believe that this is the larger issue and it's the only reason this Supreme Court is struggling to find a way to salvage the Law. If it's unconstitutional, and I'm not saying it is as the decision has not been made yet, then why would it be a good idea to wait until another Justice would be appointed? Wouldn't that be the worst possible outcome?

I guess I "see" the slippery slope argument you are talking about, but I don't think its real. For one, I think the administration is right that health care is a unique industry. Everyone will need it. And no one can plan on not needing it at some point.

Second, this whole "government can make us eat brocolli" thing is ridiculous. You know what you're forgetting about... there's this failsafe thing called "voting." Its not like we as citizens don't have to vote a majority of people into office who want to legislate that everyone eat brocolli. The simple fact is that the government can tax you on things. If they want to tax you for not having health insuranc, they can. If they want to give you a tax break because you're rich enough to buy a house, they can. But we have to put people into office to actually pass those bills. And its not like its easy to get something like this through the Senate. You really think 60 senators are going to vote on people eating brocolli? Red Herring.

[The 12th Commandment]

Myths of the Free Rider Health Care Problem

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/02/02/myths-of-the-free-rider-health-care-problem/

Disagree, I like me some EMTALA. With mustard.

Really, the sensible thing to do is recognize that, like education, health care is a fundamental right, and create a single payer system with the ability to purchase whatever increase in coverage you want. I totally see there still being a market for that increased level of coverage in both offerings from potential employers and by anyone with the income to support it. That's about stark as I'm willing to go. No kicking anyone out for lack of money whatever it costs, but do it intelligently or don't bother. I agree with the author that pasting one bad policy on top of another is stupid.

[Wrong Direction]

I guess I "see" the slippery slope argument you are talking about, but I don't think its real. For one, I think the administration is right that health care is a unique industry. Everyone will need it. And no one can plan on not needing it at some point.

Second, this whole "government can make us eat brocolli" thing is ridiculous. You know what you're forgetting about... there's this failsafe thing called "voting." Its not like we as citizens don't have to vote a majority of people into office who want to legislate that everyone eat brocolli.

"Yeah, but that would never happen..." is not a defense for setting a significant precedent in case law. Did the founders ever think a farmer would be disallowed from growing his own wheat to feed his family and livestock?

Maybe it's very unlikely, but today's unlikely might be tomorrow's mandate to purchase a solar panel, or to take a blood test, or to join a weight loss program if you're over x pounds, or to include 3 servings per person per day in your food purchases, or to purchase life insurance, or...this takes you as far as your imagination allows.

All of these "mandates" might make sense on their own, but they steal our liberty to do what we want with our lives, and Congress should not have that authority.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I guess I "see" the slippery slope argument you are talking about, but I don't think its real. For one, I think the administration is right that health care is a unique industry. Everyone will need it. And no one can plan on not needing it at some point.

This is really not about Health Care. The concern of the Supreme Court is the far reaching effects this kind of latitude, with regards to the Commerce Clause, can have on multiple situations and markets. They are saying that if we allow this, it can be applied in ways that we can not foresee, compounded by the fact that we have set legal precedence for it's legal application in what may prove to be unconstitutional. This, IMO, is a huge concern for the Supreme Court.

Second, this whole "government can make us eat brocolli" thing is ridiculous. You know what you're forgetting about... there's this failsafe thing called "voting." Its not like we as citizens don't have to vote a majority of people into office who want to legislate that everyone eat brocolli. The simple fact is that the government can tax you on things. If they want to tax you for not having health insuranc, they can. If they want to give you a tax break because you're rich enough to buy a house, they can. But we have to put people into office to actually pass those bills. And its not like its easy to get something like this through the Senate. You really think 60 senators are going to vote on people eating brocolli? Red Herring.

Again, if this were a Tax, I could see your argument. Since the Government is not calling this a Tax and it is not treating it as if it were a Tax, there is no Congressional vote that would take place. The Government would simply invoke the Commerce Clause on any segment of business they deemed vital to the health and stability of Commerce. The Justice is not literally saying that the Government would invoke on Broccoli, the Justice is saying, what is to stop the Government from invoking on something like Broccoli. It's not a Red Hearing, there would be no Congressional Vote on it and the Commerce Clause, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, has been enacted against a simple farmer in Wickard vs Filburn. The farmer grew grain to feed his livestock,not to sell or trade mind you, but to feed his own property, was forced to stop growing grain, through the use of the Commerce Clause. I get that most people look at that possibility as remote at best or "a Red Herring" but in fact it is not. Unintended Circumstances are the fears of the Supreme Court in this case. This is what they are trying to Guard against.

I think we are all aware of the fact that politicians, all of them, can be swayed through all sorts of means in order to get anything passed and it is not necessarily in the best long term interests of the American people. I kind of view this Health Care law in that light. I get the desire for a plan that provides for Americans in an efficient, less costly way. I don't necessarily agree that Obamacare does that but I do understand the desire for that. By invoking the Commerce Clause to accomplish this, it opens the door to a very risky path. Long term, it could well prove to be much more harmful then good.

---------- Post added March-28th-2012 at 03:27 PM ----------

Disagree, I like me some EMTALA. With mustard.

Really, the sensible thing to do is recognize that, like education, health care is a fundamental right, and create a single payer system with the ability to purchase whatever increase in coverage you want. I totally see there still being a market for that increased level of coverage in both offerings from potential employers and by anyone with the income to support it. That's about stark as I'm willing to go. No kicking anyone out for lack of money whatever it costs, but do it intelligently or don't bother. I agree with the author that pasting one bad policy on top of another is stupid.

Unless you can plan for population growth in America, it will not work. That is the fundamental issue in this approach.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

"Yeah, but that would never happen..." is not a defense for setting a significant precedent in case law. Did the founders ever think a farmer would be disallowed from growing his own wheat to feed his family and livestock?

Maybe it's very unlikely, but today's unlikely might be tomorrow's mandate to purchase a solar panel, or to take a blood test, or to join a weight loss program if you're over x pounds, or to include 3 servings per person per day in your food purchases, or to purchase life insurance, or...this takes you as far as your imagination allows.

All of these "mandates" might make sense on their own, but they steal our liberty to do what we want with our lives, and Congress should not have that authority.

Actually it is. The question before the court is not about broccoli. The question is about health care. So, making this "slippery slope" argument is what is not really before the court. The court shouldnt ask what precedent they are setting; they should ask if the law is constitutional.

By the way, there are already state mandates to buy solar panels in some states. Where's the ruckus.

Edit: in response to ABQ, that is not what the case is about. Those are political questions. And though that's not what the case is about, I agree that's what its been made about. The one thing I'm getting from reading some of these justices questions is that they are as political as anyone in the house, senate or white house, and I'm saddened to realize that they are advocates for their cause and not justices.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Actually it is. The question before the court is not about broccoli. The question is about health care. So, making this "slippery slope" argument is what is not really before the court. The court shouldnt ask what precedent they are setting; they should ask if the law is constitutional.

By the way, there are already state mandates to buy solar panels in some states. Where's the ruckus.

Edit: in response to ABQ, that is not what the case is about. Those are political questions. And though that's not what the case is about, I agree that's what its been made about. The one thing I'm getting from reading some of these justices questions is that they are as political as anyone in the house, senate or white house, and I'm saddened to realize that they are advocates for their cause and not justices.

This case is about the Constitutionality of the Law in question. The piece that is in danger of being found Unconstitutional is the mandate invoked, through the Commerce Clause, in this Law. You can say that it is about Health Care if you wish but if the Law is found to be unconstitutional or the mandate is ruled as Unconstitutional and stripped from Obamacare, it will be because of what has been outlined above. In any case, it will amount to the same.

[Larry]

This is really not about Health Care. The concern of the Supreme Court is the far reaching effects this kind of latitude, with regards to the Commerce Clause, can have on multiple situations and markets. They are saying that if we allow this, it can be applied in ways that we can not foresee, compounded by the fact that we have set legal precedence for it's legal application in what may prove to be unconstitutional. This, IMO, is a huge concern for the Supreme Court.

Just observing that people's assertions of "it's just this one case" vs "you must take the current case and stretch it to the most extreme case imaginable, before you consider this case", seems to depend a lot on whether they like the law being discussed or not.

Again, if this were a Tax, I could see your argument. Since the Government is not calling this a Tax and it is not treating it as if it were a Tax, there is no Congressional vote that would take place. The Government would simply invoke the Commerce Clause on any segment of business they deemed vital to the health and stability of Commerce.

And speaking of "taking the current situation and creating the most extreme thing imaginable . . .

Could you point me at the part of the Commerce Clause that states that the government "invokes" it, and that this, therefore, allows the government to bypass Congress?

Really?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just observing that people's assertions of "it's just this one case" vs "you must take the current case and stretch it to the most extreme case imaginable, before you consider this case", seems to depend a lot on whether they like the law being discussed or not.

I will not comment on the validity of likability as that can be argued either way and that only serves to degenerate into a Left Right argument. I will say this. I would rather the Court consider the most extreme imaginable as opposed to take a quick and easy view of it and simply rubber stamping it. I hope that the Supreme Court does this very thing.

And speaking of "taking the current situation and creating the most extreme thing imaginable . . .

Could you point me at the part of the Commerce Clause that states that the government "invokes" it, and that this, therefore, allows the government to bypass Congress?

Really?

No, but I can certainly point you to a place where the federal government has invoked the commerce clause to initiate what, here to for, has never been legal and could very well be unconstitutional. If this is deemed Constitutional, the Commerce Clause can be used as justification to force Americans to buy any number of things that the Government sees fit to declare Vital to American Commerce. For example, alternative fuels or Energy Sources, any number of things.

[Madison Redskin]

Just observing that people's assertions of "it's just this one case" vs "you must take the current case and stretch it to the most extreme case imaginable, before you consider this case", seems to depend a lot on whether they like the law being discussed or not.

I have flip flopped quite a bit on the issue because I think that, when viewed in isolation and without regard to the broader impact it may have on the role of government, Obamacare is probably a net positive for society. However, I do have concerns about its constitutionality and I think it may indeed set a bad precedent with respect to the proper role of government.

As I noted earlier, I typically do not care for "slippery slope" arguments. However, Supreme Court justices should consider the precedent they are setting and (thankfully), as the questions they have posed over the last couple days suggest, they do. In my opinion, any justice who only considers the narrow facts before him or her and ignores the impact the decision will have on other courts, legislatures, etc. in other contexts in the future does not deserve to sit on the bench.

All that said, the broccoli example wasn't a great one. A better one might be life insurance. Does the Constitution implicitly authorize the federal government to levy fines on persons who fail to procure life insurance policies? After all, everyone will die and dying without adequate life insurance may result in all sorts of adverse consequences (e.g., widows and children of the deceased may be left to live in poverty).

By the way, there are already state mandates to buy solar panels in some states. Where's the ruckus.

I can envision circumstances in which the states may lawfully mandate that certain people, proposing to do certain things, must buy and use solar panels. However, I cannot believe that any state has proposed that all state residents must buy solar panels as condition of living/breathing/residing in state.

[Thiebear]

I am just stunned at how poorly the Administrations "Ringers" have done.

It seems if they had Larry or JMS speaking for them it would have been better.

[Hubbs]

I'm planning to go back and actually quote people and engage in the current discussion here, but I noticed that a few recent posts were commenting on whether or not the "no insurance" penalty is considered a tax, so I wanted to quickly throw this in there: The government lawyers are simultaneously arguing that it's a tax and not a tax, as stated in these very oral arguments when one Justice (I forget which one) noted that the government lawyers would be arguing that it's not a tax on one day but arguing that it is a tax on a different day. One big problem, however, with the "it's a tax" line of reasoning is that the penalty didn't come from the House Ways and Means Committee, even though all taxes are supposed to originate from that committee. There are reasons for this. To ignore such a rule is to ignore the basic rules under which the federal government is supposed to function.

[Renegade7]

I don't get it:

Virginia requires I have car insurance for my Sebring whether I can afford it or not. In fact, Virginia fined me $500 for letting my insurance drop and suspended my license to drive. I was fined another $500 for being caught driving without insurance, then was required to hold an SR-22 on my license after I gave up my truck at the time and didn't have a car at all (just in case I did go driving somewhere I guess). If I let that SR-22 on my license drop, they would've suspended my license again and I probably would've paid more fines.

One could argue that I don't have to drive, but then I would say that you don't have to own a business that has to offer health insurance for your employees. If the mandate is struck down, can car insurance be brought to the chopping block next???

I wouldn't be shocked if the mandate was struck down, but we'd really go backwards in a lot of ways if we tore the whole Bill down with all the programs and rules that are already in effect, imo...

[Fergasun]

Not that I disagree, but you don't have to be a politician to take an issue to the supreme court. It's open to anyone with standing.

To be honest, I did do the research and tease out a way to bring these issues before the Courts (ie. gain standing). Showing standing is more than half the battle.

In a nutshell, what happened with TARP (particularly the auto bailouts), is analogous to the Youngstown Steel case. However, the twist is that; unlike Youngstown Steel where the steel mill (the *regulated entity*) complained about the takeover, with the TARP bailouts, the banks and automobile companies (the regulated entities) wanted the government to unconstitutionally bail them out. I can argue taxpayer standing under the original taxpayer standing ruling (Flast vs. Cohen, 1968?); I can argue a generic voter standing under Article I of the Constitution (ie. if the executive branch can just re-shape laws, they have essentially re-shaped my vote. I'm no longer voting for the Congress with powers under the Constitution, if the Executive can simply "redefine" the law). The case in my mind would have to be brought under Administrative Procedure Act; and additionally you could have a Bivens action against the principles in Treasury (Paulson, Geithner, etc). Who wants to be the guy who picks a fight with Paulson (and by proxy most members of Congress)? Furthermore the only way I could bring the case would be as a pro-se plaintiff?

I'm convinced I'm the only person in America who has taken the thought process this far along... much to my dismay. Yes, even more than 3 years later I'm that pissed about TARP. The fact that lower level members of Treasury who were involved in what happened are now getting nominations to serve in the administration again (and positive approval from Congress) pisses me off even more.

Everything Congress does is a damn joke now; even the Tea Party folks are jokers. None of them seem to care about anything other than getting re-elected, and holding the "power keys" where they can get influenced by lobbyists and feel special about themselves. I never see much of anything from Congress that isn't done for some political purpose to make some constituency happy, where the result isn't rigged; or where they aren't pushing some agenda. I'm sick of having agenda-based-policy pushed on me (whether from the right or from the left). I'm sick of everything turned into a political sports match with winners and losers. The worst part is that most voters are clueless... and buy into silly little arguments (I could go into a deep tangent but I'm stopping right here).

---------- Post added March-28th-2012 at 11:36 PM ----------

A better one might be life insurance. Does the Constitution implicitly authorize the federal government to levy fines on persons who fail to procure life insurance policies? After all, everyone will die and dying without adequate life insurance may result in all sorts of adverse consequences (e.g., widows and children of the deceased may be left to live in poverty).

But the problem is that your failure to buy life insurance doesn't impact my life-insurance market. That is to say... if you don't buy life insurance, there's not going to be a policy. Whereas everyone participates in the health insurance market and non-participation impacts my cost.

[Thiebear]

But the problem is that your failure to buy life insurance doesn't impact my life-insurance market. That is to say... if you don't buy life insurance, there's not going to be a policy. Whereas everyone participates in the health insurance market and non-participation impacts my cost.

And the problem with that is the (lets say 700$ fine) for not buying healthcare is what 12% of those were discussing and is not going to bring the 'price' down as thats a decimal point?

Current policy of fixing everyone will not change, you won't suddenly be denied access if you do or donot pay the fine...

The current costs just doubled from 960billion to 1.8trillion and we are still in the 'collection phase' and not the 'payoutt phase'.

[Madison Redskin]

But the problem is that your failure to buy life insurance doesn't impact my life-insurance market. That is to say... if you don't buy life insurance, there's not going to be a policy. Whereas everyone participates in the health insurance market and non-participation impacts my cost.

If I don't buy health insurance, there's not going to be a health insurance policy for me. I am not in the health insurance market. You can't have it both ways and argue "everyone participates in the health insurance market" and "non-participants" impact my costs.

Will non-participants have an impact on the health insurance market? I suspect that, in most cases, at some point in the future, non-participants require healthcare, are unable to pay 100% of the bill, and, as a result, the hospital and doctors "eat" some of the non-participants' bills, the hospital and doctor charge higher rates to offset some of those losses, insurance companies pay those higher rates, and insurance companies pass some of those costs to participants. Does the fact that non-participation may have a substantial, but indirect, impact on the market justify the federal government forcing people into the market under the guise of merely regulating it? In my view, probably not.

Let me try another hypo. Suppose Roche sells Wonder Drug for $10,000, but a lot of people are skeptical as to whether it's safe and, as a result, don't buy it. The government then concludes "everyone should have Wonder Drug, but people who aren't buying it are preventing Roche from taking advantage of economies of scale and lowering the price by a substantial amount." Under those circumstances, may the government lawfully "regulate" the market by punishing those who don't buy Wonder Drug?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I can envision circumstances in which the states may lawfully mandate that certain people, proposing to do certain things, must buy and use solar panels. However, I cannot believe that any state has proposed that all state residents must buy solar panels as condition of living/breathing/residing in state.

Hawaii requires that all new construction have solar panels installed.

---------- Post added March-29th-2012 at 09:37 AM ----------

I'm planning to go back and actually quote people and engage in the current discussion here, but I noticed that a few recent posts were commenting on whether or not the "no insurance" penalty is considered a tax, so I wanted to quickly throw this in there: The government lawyers are simultaneously arguing that it's a tax and not a tax, as stated in these very oral arguments when one Justice (I forget which one) noted that the government lawyers would be arguing that it's not a tax on one day but arguing that it is a tax on a different day. One big problem, however, with the "it's a tax" line of reasoning is that the penalty didn't come from the House Ways and Means Committee, even though all taxes are supposed to originate from that committee. There are reasons for this. To ignore such a rule is to ignore the basic rules under which the federal government is supposed to function.

Yea, this is what they really blew. If they argued it was a tax, it would have been no problem. The goverment attorneys did a very poor job.

[Slateman]

JMS, are we going to get any updates in the OP?

[Madison Redskin]

Hawaii requires that all new construction have solar panels installed.

That's fine, just like building codes that require all sorts of purchases in connection with new construction. However, that law does not apply to all persons as a condition of being a resident of the State of Hawaii. It only applies to persons who choose to construct certain new buildings. I am not arguing that the government may never penalize persons for failing to buy a product. I am saying that the government probably cannot penalize persons for failing to buy a product ... merely because they have pulses.

[Larry]

Yea, this is what they really blew. If they argued it was a tax, it would have been no problem. The goverment attorneys did a very poor job.

I assume that the reason they didn't label it that way, was political.

They didn't want to get beat over the head with "Democrat Tax Increase" for the next 20 years.

---------- Post added March-29th-2012 at 10:12 AM ----------

That's fine, just like building codes that require all sorts of purchases in connection with new construction. However, that law does not apply to all persons as a condition of being a resident of the State of Hawaii. It only applies to persons who choose to construct certain new buildings. I am not arguing that the government may never penalize persons for failing to buy a product. I am saying that the government probably cannot penalize persons for failing to buy a product ... merely because they have pulses.

I've heard that argument, before.

Unfortunately, my response is "Do you really want to try to argue that the government doesn't have the authority to pass laws that apply to all citizens?"

[MattFancy]

I don't get it:

Virginia requires I have car insurance for my Sebring whether I can afford it or not. In fact, Virginia fined me $500 for letting my insurance drop and suspended my license to drive. I was fined another $500 for being caught driving without insurance, then was required to hold an SR-22 on my license after I gave up my truck at the time and didn't have a car at all (just in case I did go driving somewhere I guess). If I let that SR-22 on my license drop, they would've suspended my license again and I probably would've paid more fines.

One could argue that I don't have to drive, but then I would say that you don't have to own a business that has to offer health insurance for your employees. If the mandate is struck down, can car insurance be brought to the chopping block next???

I wouldn't be shocked if the mandate was struck down, but we'd really go backwards in a lot of ways if we tore the whole Bill down with all the programs and rules that are already in effect, imo...

This a really interesting point. Haven't thought of it that way.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I assume that the reason they didn't label it that way, was political.

They didn't want to get beat over the head with "Democrat Tax Increase" for the next 20 years.

Yes, but because they arrogantly dismissed the appeal as a real thing (and let's be honest, an appeal to a Supreme Court with a majority of republicans), they didn't change course in fighting the legal battle. It is one thing to argue it in politics, but they should have manned up when the legality of the thing got put to the test.

Anyway, I'm really not offended by this bill being thrown out. Its a crappy bill, and always has been. We need a public option or single payer system already.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't get it:

Virginia requires I have car insurance for my Sebring whether I can afford it or not. In fact, Virginia fined me $500 for letting my insurance drop and suspended my license to drive. I was fined another $500 for being caught driving without insurance, then was required to hold an SR-22 on my license after I gave up my truck at the time and didn't have a car at all (just in case I did go driving somewhere I guess). If I let that SR-22 on my license drop, they would've suspended my license again and I probably would've paid more fines.

One could argue that I don't have to drive, but then I would say that you don't have to own a business that has to offer health insurance for your employees. If the mandate is struck down, can car insurance be brought to the chopping block next???

I wouldn't be shocked if the mandate was struck down, but we'd really go backwards in a lot of ways if we tore the whole Bill down with all the programs and rules that are already in effect, imo...

Owning a business has nothing to do with being mandated to pay. If the law stands, everybody will either be forced to buy insurance or pay a penalty. You have no choice. You don't have to buy a vehicle and so, you don't have to buy car insurance unless you chose to own a vehicle. You don't have that option under Obamacare.

As far as Car Insurance is concerned, I wish they would scrap that law. It was BS when they passed it and it is exactly why Obamacare will not work IMO. When they passed the Mandatory Insurance Law, it was under the guise that all would have it and so rates would drop. That sounds very familiar. What actually happened was that the Law was passed and those of us who were responsible bought insurance and those of us who were not didn't. If they got caught, they paid a fine which turned out to be considerably less then the cost of insurance premiums. The next immediate result was that those of us who had insurance ended up paying higher premiums to cover those of us who did not. Because we all are forced to pay it and because there is jail time associated with not having it, the rest of us suffer extreme rates because of this. If you take away the law that makes it mandatory, then Insurance Companies have to again compete for your business and entice you to actually buy insurance. That would lower the premiums. As it is now, you have a few Insurance Companies who own the market and are assured of a certain percentage of business because the law demands that you must buy it. It's better the other way IMO.

---------- Post added March-29th-2012 at 08:48 AM ----------

If I don't buy health insurance, there's not going to be a health insurance policy for me. I am not in the health insurance market. You can't have it both ways and argue "everyone participates in the health insurance market" and "non-participants" impact my costs.

Will non-participants have an impact on the health insurance market? I suspect that, in most cases, at some point in the future, non-participants require healthcare, are unable to pay 100% of the bill, and, as a result, the hospital and doctors "eat" some of the non-participants' bills, the hospital and doctor charge higher rates to offset some of those losses, insurance companies pay those higher rates, and insurance companies pass some of those costs to participants. Does the fact that non-participation may have a substantial, but indirect, impact on the market justify the federal government forcing people into the market under the guise of merely regulating it? In my view, probably not.

Let me try another hypo. Suppose Roche sells Wonder Drug for $10,000, but a lot of people are skeptical as to whether it's safe and, as a result, don't buy it. The government then concludes "everyone should have Wonder Drug, but people who aren't buying it are preventing Roche from taking advantage of economies of scale and lowering the price by a substantial amount." Under those circumstances, may the government lawfully "regulate" the market by punishing those who don't buy Wonder Drug?

I would say that it is absolutely possible and absolutely likely that we see these kinds of things happen if this Law is found to be Constitutional.