Cartoon of the Day
By John Deering.
Current Intrade odds are almost 2-to-1 that the individual mandate will be declared unconstitutional.
Current Intrade odds are almost 2-to-1 that the individual mandate will be declared unconstitutional.
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Friday, March 30, 2012
About Me
- Name: Mark J. Perry
- Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Previous Posts
- Restaurant Index Expands in Feb. for 4th Month
- Friday Morning Links
- Markets in Everything: Maine Eels for $2k/Pound
- Michigan Economy Shifts Into High Gear in January ...
- Ion Proton Provides a Cheap Window into our DNA: T...
- Nevada's Modern Day Gold Rush Creates Jobs
- Min Wage = No Subway $5 Footlongs In SF
- Jobless Claims Close to a Four-Year Low
- Crushing Economic Liberty to Protect Status Quo
- Vegas Existing Home Sales Surge to 7-Yr. High
15 Comments:
that would also apply to the mandate of romneycare in massachuetts
that would also apply to the mandate of romneycare in massachuetts
I think the Supreme Court ruling would only affect the mandate at the national level. Massachusetts would be unaffected.
"that would also apply to the mandate of romneycare in massachuetts"...
Sadly I think not, not even close though I'm sure many, many residents of Massachusetts would love for that to be so...
Consider James Madison in Federalist No. 41...
well, nothing compares to nancy pelosi saying "we have to pass it to know what's in it" back then then recently swearing that they knew it was constitutional when they passed it and blaming the mandate on the GOP.
i have met the woman personally, and there is not a genuine or truthful bone in her body.
It looks like Obamacare is toast:
Supreme Court’s decision on health-care law is likely this week-in secret
March 30, 2012
"The tenor of the comments over three days of oral arguments suggested that the nine justices had made up their minds.
Friday morning they will meet in private to cast their votes. Their decision will be kept secret within the court and is not likely to be announced until late June.
This week’s arguments cheered conservatives and shook liberal supporters of the law.
"I left the court each day feeling as good as could be," said Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett, a libertarian and the leading academic critic of the individual mandate. The arguments "couldn’t have gone much better for our side."
Barnett has argued that although Congress has broad power to regulate commerce, it cannot force any person to buy a product or engage in commerce. For that reason, he said the individual mandate to have insurance was unconstitutional
Kennedy, seen as the crucial swing vote, seemed to adopt this view in Tuesday’s argument. He called the mandate to have insurance "unprecedented" and "a step beyond what our cases have allowed." He said the government has "a heavy burden" to justify such a law because it "requires an individual to do an affirmative act.""
How approprate it was for a reporter to use "train wreck" and "Obama Administration" in the same sentence:
Death of a Mandate: Why Health Care Reform in America is Over
03/29/2012
""Shock and awe" best describes the reaction of legislators and commentators upon hearing the Supreme Court's closing day of arguments on the constitutionality of Obama's health care legislation.
Democrats as well as the beltway media had assumed the bill was safe, thinking that the legislation fit firmly under the Congressional power of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
The line of questioning from conservative justices, as well as swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, indicates a majority of justices already think the mandate is unconstitutional.
With this a foregone conclusion, they've moved on to ask the question: If the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, doesn't that mean that the whole law is invalidated?
Justice Kennedy said that if they strike the mandate, "by reason of the court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider." He went on to say that anything short of striking down the whole bill might be a "more extreme exercise of judicial power."
He was echoed by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who said it is "totally unrealistic to comb through a 2,700-page law... My approach would be if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute is gone."
Reporters, commentators and Democratic legislators were stunned by the Court's turn.
CNN's Jeffrey Toobin called today "a train wreck for the Obama administration."
Toobin said, "this morning was unbelievable. It was like a given that they're throwing out the mandate.
Anthony Kennedy was like, 'Well, when we throw out the mandate...' -- Do you know what a huge deal that is?"
The logistical problem is that if the Court strikes down the mandate, the rest of the law may unravel for financial reasons."
If the "individual mandate" (requirement to buy health insurance or pay a fine is declared unconstitutional), this would seem to set a precedent. But does it? It seems the precedent has already been set. Paying for social security and medicare is already an individual mandate - very few exceptions are allowed. This has not been declared unconstitutional.
I'm over 70 years old and, via Kaiser Permanente insurance, I'm receiving Medicare. I'm required by federal law to pay for medicare insurance, but not Kaiser. Under the new law, I am required to purchase private insurance.
Deciding that the "individual mandate" is unconstitutional could easily set a precedent, but perhaps more than that, it might just as easily open a can of worms. Does that mean that social security and medicare requirements could then be challenged as unconsitutional, as well?
Paying for social security and medicare is already an individual mandate - very few exceptions are allowed. This has not been declared unconstitutional.
There is a huge difference between the two.
Social Security and Medicare are paid into via taxes.
This law would require a purchase and punish those who do not.
That is the precedence being set. A tax cannot be done on inaction.
If the government wanted to create universal health care and fund it through a tax, that would be constitutional.
But to hold the figurative gun to a person's head and and saying "you will buy this product" is something all together.
juandos: "Consider James Madison in Federalist No. 41..."
I see that ever since you pulled out those Federalist Papers to read to Hydra, you have kept them close at hand. :)
Never know whan they might come in handy.
"i have met the woman personally, and there is not a genuine or truthful bone in her body"
If you shook her hand, did you count your fingers afterwards, and then go wash your hands?
It amazes me that people still support her and send her back time after time.
Please tell me you didn't hug her.
Kleht: "f the "individual mandate" (requirement to buy health insurance or pay a fine is declared unconstitutional), this would seem to set a precedent. But does it? It seems the precedent has already been set. Paying for social security and medicare is already an individual mandate - very few exceptions are allowed. This has not been declared unconstitutional."
Interesting question, but I think you will find that Social Security and Medicare are taxes on income. Contributors pay for benefits for current retirees. No one is buying anything.
The Obamacare individual mandate would require purchase of a commercial product.
"I'm receiving Medicare. I'm required by federal law to pay for medicare insurance, but not Kaiser."
You are only required to pay for Medicare as a Social Security recipient. Otherwise, you are not.
""Under the new law, I am required to purchase private insurance".
I think we we will see Obamacare bite the dust.
"Deciding that the "individual mandate" is unconstitutional could easily set a precedent, but perhaps more than that, it might just as easily open a can of worms. Does that mean that social security and medicare requirements could then be challenged as unconsitutional, as well?"
Social Security was carefully written as several different titles, or laws to avoid constitutional challenges. You are taxed as a worker, and receive benefits as a retiree. Although part of the same package, the two things aren't technically connected, although we are certainly led to believe they are. You have no contractual right to SS retirement benefits.
It is a pay as you go system with current workers financing current retirees, and the Ponzi scheme is starting to unravel, as the number of retirees explodes.
Jon M: "If the government wanted to create universal health care and fund it through a tax, that would be constitutional."
But Obama promised no higher taxes for anyone but "the rich", in fact he was very adamant about it, so he has carefully denounced any attempt to characterize the individual mandate as a tax. Now being a tax might save Obamacare, but he's stuck. It's a lose-lose.
"If the government wanted to create universal health care and fund it through a tax, that would be constitutional"...
Only to people who have the benefit of a 'new age' education where FDR isn't labled as the progressive depot he was jon murphy...
Dividing Citizens: Gender and Federalism in New Deal Public Policy
Suzanne Mettler
The Supreme Court reborn: the constitutional revolution in the age of Roosevelt
William E. Leuchtenburg
"Never know whan they might come in handy"...
Well ron h I have to wonder (well not really very much) if hydra will see that they will conflict with his preconceived narrative, hence they'll be totally worthless to him 'unless' he can use pretzel logic and try to spin the contents 'progressively'...
juandos,
Yeah, when the authors of a document explain in great detail what the document means and what they intended, I don't know what else can be done.
Post a Comment
<< Home