Skwrl 56 #126 May 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotestandardized insurance products to be sold across state lines, etc. So, for the record, a state shouldn't have the ability to regulate the insurance products being sold in its territory? This should be governed by Federal and not State law? Interesting position, since I thought a lot of folks who are opposed to the federal mandate concept are pro-State's rights... Regulate, yes. Mandate, no. The issue of too much government interference and corruption is not limited to the federal level., they're just the worst offenders. Wait, wait... States can and do regulate insurance; it's a power they have retained because they haven't been pre-empted by Federal law. You were saying "federal law ought to set the standard for insurance", which means that states effectively don't. If you want to have federal sales of insurance, you need either (a) an interstate harmonization of insurance laws - a major undertaking with 50 states' insurance commissioners all vying for their position to be heard - it was tried and failed spectacularly, or (b) federal law pre-empting state law (so, limited state's rights there). The folks who usually complain about the ACA (I'm agnostic but it's an interesting Constitutional argument) claim that the ACA is unconstitutional because the constitutional authorization that underlies it is the Commerce Clause, and they claim that despite 60 years of jurisprudence that expanded the Commerce Clause, there are limits to it and you can't create a mandate on an individual as he or she might not interact in interstate commerce. There's nothing in the Commerce Clause that limits the power of a STATE to do that. That's why the Massachusetts act is constitutional (both under the Massachusetts constitution AND the Commonwealth's Constitution).Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skwrl 56 #127 May 9, 2012 QuoteI think the clause I listed is there to make sure the states play nice It was originally there to allow the Federal Government to regulate transactions that crossed state borders. But that was in the 18th Century, when the United States was an agrarian economy. Back then, you didn't think of yourself as "an American", you thought of yourself as "a Vermonter", a "Virginian", etc. That's because the vast majority of commerce was local. (That changed with the Civil War, by the way.) Flash forward to the 21st century. Right now, you're engaged in interstate commerce (you're using the internet). I'd bet 95% to 99% of the property you own came from interstate commerce. We live in a different world. But more to the point, what really changed the Commerce Clause was the FDR's New Deal. From the mid 1930s through the early 1940s, there were a line of cases that determined that the Commerce Clause wasn't there "to make the states play nice", but described the power that the Congress had to regulate things that not only DID cross borders but COULD AFFECT things that crossed borders. For example, Court found in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government could could apply national quotas to wheat grown on one's own land, for one's own consumption, because the total of such local production and consumption could potentially be sufficiently large as to impact the overall national goal of stabilizing prices. Awfully close to an individual mandate, no?Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #128 May 9, 2012 Quote Americans will always be willing to pay more to get more. Wendy P. Agreed, unless the taxes they're forced to pay to support the lower tier, prevent them from the upper tier. That bar to upper tier ability will continuously be raised as more people fall below it.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #129 May 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteI think the clause I listed is there to make sure the states play nice It was originally there to allow the Federal Government to regulate transactions that crossed state borders. But that was in the 18th Century, when the United States was an agrarian economy. Back then, you didn't think of yourself as "an American", you thought of yourself as "a Vermonter", a "Virginian", etc. That's because the vast majority of commerce was local. (That changed with the Civil War, by the way.) Flash forward to the 21st century. Right now, you're engaged in interstate commerce (you're using the internet). I'd bet 95% to 99% of the property you own came from interstate commerce. We live in a different world. But more to the point, what really changed the Commerce Clause was the FDR's New Deal. From the mid 1930s through the early 1940s, there were a line of cases that determined that the Commerce Clause wasn't there "to make the states play nice", but described the power that the Congress had to regulate things that not only DID cross borders but COULD AFFECT things that crossed borders. For example, Court found in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government could could apply national quotas to wheat grown on one's own land, for one's own consumption, because the total of such local production and consumption could potentially be sufficiently large as to impact the overall national goal of stabilizing prices. Awfully close to an individual mandate, no? Close, but different as it's conditional. If one does not want to be subjected to a wheat restriction, they can chose to not grow wheat. If one does not want health insurance, they have no way of avoiding it without fines as the condition is life itself. Not even taxes have that power, one can simply not make nor spend money and they will pay no tax.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skwrl 56 #130 May 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think the clause I listed is there to make sure the states play nice It was originally there to allow the Federal Government to regulate transactions that crossed state borders. But that was in the 18th Century, when the United States was an agrarian economy. Back then, you didn't think of yourself as "an American", you thought of yourself as "a Vermonter", a "Virginian", etc. That's because the vast majority of commerce was local. (That changed with the Civil War, by the way.) Flash forward to the 21st century. Right now, you're engaged in interstate commerce (you're using the internet). I'd bet 95% to 99% of the property you own came from interstate commerce. We live in a different world. But more to the point, what really changed the Commerce Clause was the FDR's New Deal. From the mid 1930s through the early 1940s, there were a line of cases that determined that the Commerce Clause wasn't there "to make the states play nice", but described the power that the Congress had to regulate things that not only DID cross borders but COULD AFFECT things that crossed borders. For example, Court found in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government could could apply national quotas to wheat grown on one's own land, for one's own consumption, because the total of such local production and consumption could potentially be sufficiently large as to impact the overall national goal of stabilizing prices. Awfully close to an individual mandate, no? Close, but different as it's conditional. If one does not want to be subjected to a wheat restriction, they can chose to not grow wheat. If one does not want health insurance, they have no way of avoiding it without fines as the condition is life itself. Not even taxes have that power, one can simply not make nor spend money and they will pay no tax. That is a distinction between the two, but the question (from a constitutional standpoint) is whether that distinction between the two makes any difference as to whether it is interstate commerce, as the health insurance market is defined as the population of people in the US (so, if you're living, you're part of "the pool"). I'll admit that it's invasive, but up until Lopez a lot of Constitutional scholars would have bet that it was within the Commerce Clause power to do so. Now? Who knows. We'll see, I guess. For the folks who back the ACA, their biggest mistake (in my analysis) was that they should have structured it as a tax. You could easily say "we're going to raise taxes by $x, but you get a credit equal to $x if you buy health insurance". That would have clearly been Constitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment. They didn't for political reasons; it will be interesting to see how whether that bites them in the ass.Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #131 May 9, 2012 Quote For the folks who back the ACA, their biggest mistake (in my analysis) was that they should have structured it as a tax. You could easily say "we're going to raise taxes by $x, but you get a credit equal to $x if you buy health insurance". That would have clearly been Constitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment. They didn't for political reasons; it will be interesting to see how whether that bites them in the ass. Hmmmm. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3649416;search_string=tax%20credit;#3649416... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skwrl 56 #132 May 9, 2012 QuoteQuote For the folks who back the ACA, their biggest mistake (in my analysis) was that they should have structured it as a tax. You could easily say "we're going to raise taxes by $x, but you get a credit equal to $x if you buy health insurance". That would have clearly been Constitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment. They didn't for political reasons; it will be interesting to see how whether that bites them in the ass. Hmmmm. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3649416;search_string=tax%20credit;#3649416 Yep. That would have worked much better from a Con Law perspective, but I assume they would have had issues selling it politically (even though it's the same damn result).Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
