Two Years On: Obamacare

That's more than hyperbolic.

If Kennedy wrote an opinion upholding and using that as his limiting principle and declaring health insurance a unique market, where would you find fault with his logic?

 

It's not hyperbolic at all.

That argument attempts to define "activity" as "inactivity that has a different effect than activity." From there, there is literally nothing you can give the government the power to do under the commerce clause.

 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that the government might require Americans to buy cellphones to be ready for emergencies. And Justice Antonin Scalia asked if the government might require Americans to buy broccoli or automobiles.

"If the government can do this, what else can it ... do?” Scalia asked.

 

Wow...

 

Scalia is just being a good Republican.

 

Those are common questions during oral arguments. They're looking for a limiting principle.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-27/some-justices-question-health-law-s-constitutionality

What impact, if any, would this being ruled unconstitutional have on November's election?

 

I don't think this came out how you intended it.

 

I already subsidize cell phones and broccoli and automobiles with my tax dollars.

 

If insurers respond by dropping everyone who's been covered, refusing to cover the sick, and finding all sort of reasons to deny already-paid-for coverage to those who get sick, then it becomes an electoral issue.

And/or, more people are moved to go to the polls and give to Democratic candidates because they feel the Supreme Court (at least the Republican wing) is an out-of-control group of activist judges, and that a re-elected Obama is needed to ensure that if one of these guys kicks while in office, the swing vote can go the other way. (The same might apply to Republicans.)

Whatever happens, it won't be pretty.

 

It's missing an "n't", but I the meaning got through despite my mistake.

The important part is the assertion that the argument being made tries to define "inactivity that has an effect" as "activity."

 

I think the more accurate summation would be that inactivity, in the case of insurance, causes economic activity.

Is it not possible that insurance is a unique industry in that regard?