Two Years On: Obamacare

But it happens all the time. Congress has passed a law requiring gasoline to contain ethanol made from corn. If you think ethanol is environmentally damaging (I don't, but many do), you are SOL. Same thing goes for laws requiring import firms to use only American ships. If it's interstate commerce, Congress can do this. To argue health insurance isn't interstate commerce is absurd. I live in Massachusetts, and my company health care is Alabama Blue Cross. If the Court rules Congress cannot regulate interstate commerce, welcome back to 1785. Bets on which state has the first Whiskey Rebellion?
The Court is ruled by ideologues with no real world experience. They know richos will take care of them no matter what. So they're reckless. However, what goes around comes around. Odds are the next time the wheel turns, a Democratic Supreme Court will issue equally radical rulings. Unless, of course, the current court gets rid of the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts.

 

I was prepping an espresso machine for installation tomorrow, and had it on in the background.

I paused long enough to watch Williams' report, but didn't pay attention after that.

But, in general, Mathews is like a caricature of a news anchor.

 

Perhaps this was answered earlier; I'm not going to go back through 18 pages, but perhaps SportsJournalists.com's law firm can enlighten me on how this is different from compelling you to buy home and auto insurance?

Also, does this corporocratic court understand that to strike down this law will be to stick a finger in the eye of the insurance industry? Or in their zeal to become an embarrassment to those future Americans who aren't trying to scrape together a living in Banana Republic America (see Bush v. Gore and Citizens United for ready reference) they're going back on themselves?

That said, the Obama Administration deserves plenty of blame here, for violating one of the first tenets of Politics 101: don't let your opponent define you or your message. That, and the fact the SG is getting his ass handed to him by Paul Clement, does not bode well for this.

 

The Solicitor General could've been Clarence Darrow, Bird. This was a bag job from the start. At a minimum, even if they decide it's not worth the flak, Kennedy and Roberts had to prove their bona fides to Team Plutocrat. But I think they don't care about public opinion. Which is why some Democratic president, although not this one, will go the full Andrew Jackson on them.

 

As you know, Ragu, you can live your whole life without owning a car, or owning a house. But sooner or later, you will need and receive medical treatment. It is a market to which we all belong, like it or not. That's the difference in those markets. It's obvious, and only ideology explains not seeing it.
I look forward to the stoned-blind uninsured driver who ran over a nun taking his case to the court and citing this one as precedent.

 

Ragu, thanks for this, but I know in California, we are compelled to own both home and car insurance. It's a stipulation in buying a house and the mandate to own car insurance was upheld 20 years ago by the state Supreme Court. I'm sure it's mandated in other states as well.

 

Wonder how those basking in the glow of their victory plan to continue bridging the gap for billions of dollars by those who are hellbent on gaming the system and getting theirs ... at any (or anyone's) cost.

It's been my experience that the problem isn't with those who cannot pay. It's those who can pay, but choose not to do so. Not coincidentally, many of the latter are screaming at financial sorts at their hospital or private practice when they receive their bills because they never thought they would end up injured or ill.

 

Here's another federalism case that gets ignored. Medical marijuana. The opinion of the Court stating that the U.S. laws preventing marijuana trafficking overruled state laws legalizing medical use of marijuana was Antonin Scalia. He's not even an ideologue. Just a party hack for the party of rich white men.

 

Again, that's not a federal mandate. As Boom pointed out, there is at least one state that doesn't even require auto insurance.

California forces people who don't own homes to buy homeowners' insurance?