The conservative 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the individual mandates is constitutional on a 2-1 split with one GOP appointed judge and one DEM appointed judge concurring.
“We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause,” Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr. wrote for the majority.
The court ruled that the mandate regulates economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and thus is legal. The court also agreed with the federal government that Congress had reason to think that allowing people to go uninsured would allow for “free riders” to take advantage of the system — and other taxpayers.
“Although there is no firm, constitutional bar that prohibits Congress from placing regulations on what could be described as inactivity, even if there were it would not impact this case due to the unique aspects of health care that make all individuals active in this market,” Martin wrote.
Duh. The federal goverment has the ability in peacetime to take you out of high school, put you in a uniform and decide your fate for the next couple of years, this is surely a bigger assault on your freedom than having to own medical insurance coverage , either goverment or private.
Interesting that one of the bill of rights concerns housing goverment troops in private housing. That is still illegal, but the peacetime draft isn't?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Something the Dog Said wrote: ..The court also agreed with the federal government that Congress had reason to think that allowing people to go uninsured would allow for “free riders” to take advantage of the system — and other taxpayers.
Yeah for Obamacare!
Yes I agree, yeah for Obama care. Now the free-riders can get free Obama care from the taxpayers. So what changed?
I am very interested in following this case. The outcome is going to affect me personally and change my lifestyle for my retirement. If the Supreme court agrees too, I am converting from producer/taxpayer to "free rider" for the rest of my golden retirement years starting in my 50's. Sign me up for the top "Platinum" Obama care plan too. I don't want no high co-pays or inconvenient deductables.
I am changing my position on this. I've gone Lib.
VL, I am joining your team, ok? Cheers!
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Interesting, Judge Sutton, the Republican appointed judge who ruled that the individual mandate is constitutional, is a former Scalia clerk and prototege, and is a leader in the Federalist Society. Thus, his decision is a likely preview of how Scalia will rule.
Here is what he had to say about the activity/inactivity argument that has been bandied about:
No one is inactive when deciding how to pay for health care, as self-insurance and private insurance are two forms of action for addressing the same risk. Each requires affirmative choices; one is no less active than the other; and both affect commerce. In affidavits filed in this case, the individual plaintiffs all mention the need
to make current changes in their spending and saving practices to account for the need to pay for medical insurance in the future. Saving to buy insurance or to self-insure, as these affidavits attest, involves action. E.g., Ceci May 27, 2011 Decl., ¶ 7 (“Due to the added financial pressure [of the mandate], I have cut back on discretionary spending, such as costs associated with entertainment, like going to the movies, a restaurant, or sporting events.”); Hyder May 28, 2011 Decl., ¶ 8 (same).
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
