In passing the law two years ago, Democrats entertained little doubt that it was constitutional. The White House held a conference call to tell reporters that any legal challenge, as one Obama aide put it, “will eventually fail and shouldn’t be given too much credence in the press.”

Congress held no hearing on the plan’s constitutionality until nearly a year after it was signed into law. Representative Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker, scoffed when a reporter asked what part of the Constitution empowered Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. “Are you serious?” she asked with disdain. “Are you serious?”

Opponents of the health plan were indeed serious, and so was the Supreme Court, which devoted more time to hearing the case than to any other in decades. A White House that had assumed any challenge would fail now fears that a centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s presidency may be partly or completely overturned on a theory that it gave little credence. The miscalculation left the administration on the defensive as its legal strategy evolved over the last two years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947092)

That's what came to mind immediately to me, too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947526)

I think it is funny how scared the OBama Administration is now that the SCOTUS is deciding the case. 2 years ago they were cocky as fuck basically telling the Repubs, "Come at me, Bro!"

Now that Fed Judges on both sides of the aisle have attacked the constitutionality of it, they ain't feelin' so sure.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947104)

By my count, both Silberman and Sutton as well as a couple of district court judges found the Affordable Care Act perfectly constitutional.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947457)

In retrospect this is clearly an open question and a real dividing line for the court to consider...whatever happens, the claims of it being obviously constitutional are complete bunk.

Of course that was all before anyone was aware that Holder is a semi-functioning retard

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947106)

Andrew Koppelman, Tuesday, 26 April 2011 [View as PDF]

The Supreme Court may be headed for its most dramatic intervention in American politics—and most flagrant abuse of its power—since Bush v. Gore. Challenges to President Obama’s health care law have started to work their way toward the Court and have been sustained by two Republican-appointed district judges.

The constitutional objections are silly. However, because constitutional law is abstract and technical and because almost no one reads Supreme Court opinions, the conservative majority on the Court may feel emboldened to adopt these silly objections in order to crush the most important progressive legislation in decades. One lesson of Bush v. Gore, which did no harm at all to the Court’s prestige in the eyes of the public, is that if there are any limits to the Justices’ power, those limits are political: absent a likelihood of public outrage, they can do anything they want. So the fate of health care reform may depend on the constitutional issues being understood at least well enough for shame to have some effect on the Court.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947110)

Even if you think it is alright for someone to initiate violence against another person, these policies are counter-productive. As is typical of libtards, you only think of the intention ("Yay lets get everyone health insurance") and fail to keep in the mind the actual results and implications (We are allowing the gov't to commit violence and will destroy health insurance).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947170)

Violence is violence. Even if it only involved punching/threatening to punch someone against their will in the shoulder, it would still be wrong.

Fee for service is how most of our economy operates. When you go out and buy food or cell phones it is fee-for-service. The mechanism is not inherently wasteful, rather having a third-party payment system is what creates the waste (imagine having food insurance; we would all eat steak). Allow people to spend their own money (i.e. things like HSA's) and you see prices plummet.

Bundled payments is horrible. By tying the revenue to the hospital/doctor to the condition, you are going to fuck people up. Two people with bladder infections walk into your hospital: One is 20 years old and otherwise healthy, the other is an 80 year old diabetic. Any rational profit-seeking hospital (Since they are now forced into bundle-payment) is going to take the 20 year old and kick the 80 year old out the door. Remeber: the hospital gets paid the same for either.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947179)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUgLUgw-O-U&t=0m5s

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947184)

Get rid of tax incentives for 3rd party HC payment (i.e. employer health insurance payment) and AMA licensing which is basically a monopoly, and then tell me that people at the poverty line don't have access to HC. Hell, I'll provide HC to poor people right now. I know a lot about muscle, tendon and bone issues thanks to personal experience. I could go now and charge $15 for a 15 minute visit with someone who has back problems. I will make it clear I don't have formal training in the area, but have a fair amount of experience. What is wrong with that? Oh, yea, the AMA wants to protect its monopoly status and would get the gov't to throw me in jail.

But, even if it was the case that certain people do not have access to modern HC, how do you justify violence against others in order to provide that for them? Poor people don't have TVs, is it right for you to break into my house and take one of my two TVs to give to the poor family down the block?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947191)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947204)

diaf.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947219)

"It is a big fucking jump from preferring one pres over another to judicial activism"

But enough about Bush v. Gore...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947541)

surely everyone buys something related to the interstate commerce of health care.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947504)

LOL you idiot. The constitution actually was intended to "increase" federal prior in comparison with what existed before it, the articles of confederation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947529)

Just like revolvers were intended to increase firepower over flintlocks.

Guess it's only a matter of time before we all get to have rocket launchers!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947550)

The 1792 Militia Act was pursuant to an enumerated congressional power. The health insurance mandate is not. The commerce clause was not meant to allow Congress to regulate non-commerce.

As for what the liberal Injustices of the Supreme Court think, screw them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20949711)

*Gets arrested by the DEA.*

*Argues Commerce Clause doesn't regulate non-commerce.*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20954491)

Told a liberal non-profit JD co-worker that I foresaw constitutional problems - she was like "THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS EXCEPT FOR RACIST TEAPARTIERS."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20949898)