Two Years On: Obamacare

That's the impression from his last few comments. He's anticipating writing the decision upholding and was thus genuinely looking for help with a limiting principle.

One wild card: Scalia seemed dismissive on the commerce clause -- saying it was necessary but perhaps not proper -- but seemed more accepting than any other justice that the ACA could be justified as simply a tax.

Could you end up 5-3-1? Or even 6-2-1 if Roberts joins the majority but writes a concurring opinion?

 

Zeke, this doesn't help you because the government mandates you buy insuarance that has particular items in it that you might not use. If broccoli = coverage for diabetes, asparagus = coverage for pediatric care, and non-vegetables = coverage for pregnancy/contraceptives/etc. You can't call "healthcare" one thing but then subdivide "food" into different groups.

 

A point which one of the justices made during the case today.

 

There are separate if overlapping markets for broccoli and asparagus, but there's pretty much one market for health insurance.

Also on point to that is that the ACA mandates that, as well, establishing baselines for what can be in a health insurance plan.

FWIW, I didn't think the broccoli question was the best question, I think Alito's burial insurance was the best question.

I still think it can be answered, but I think that was the best question.

 

I really think that is the crux of the matter. Individuals who don't have insurance aren't driving up costs. The only reason they are driving up costs is that the government mandates that hospitals and doctors treat them. The government bears a heavy burden when it "boot-straps."

Basically, the federal government has created a problem, identified a solution, and now wants more power than it had before in order to solve a problem it created. That's not going to get Kennedy's vote in most circumstances.

 

That's not true. Lots of plans cover lots of different things. And this is forcing people to get coverage for lots of things that they'd never be in the market for. I have never been, and probably will never be, in the market for contraceptives. But now I am.

How did that happen?

 

You always were in the market for contraceptives. By not buying them, you didn't allow the economies of scale to drive down the prices for the people who do buy them.

 

Considering that all 50 states require (to some extent) infants and young children to use a federal government-approved safety seat - I don't see that much of a difference between "forcing" people to buy health insurance.
Of course, if you go down that road - maybe we end up with each state offering their own baseline healthcare plan where the unhealthier states are subsidized by the healthier states - or maybe not.
I understand people's resistance to the health care reform - but there will be drastic changes in the near future regardless, the aging baby boom population, continuing higher costs of health insurance and flatlining income levels guarantee it.

 

You aren't looking very hard for the difference, then.

Last I checked, nobody has to put their kids into a car and drive it onto a government o&o road.

 

If you want to sell broccoli, you can sell broccoli. You don't have to sell asparagus.

If you want to sell health insurance, you have to sell insurance that covers contraception.

Two overlapping markets. One market.

 

I'm talking as a purchasers.

I don't want to eat broccoli or asparagus? I don't have to.
I don't want to buy insurance for contraceptives? I have to.

I agree that the government, under the Commerce Clause, has the power to require that health insurers be required to sell contraceptives. But when it forces me to buy it no matter what, that's a different issue.

 

So again the argument comes down to the government has to have this power in order to make a situation work, a situation that only exists because of previous government actions.

Constitutional or not, that's 100 kinds of icky.