Federal Judge allows Virginia Healthcare suitFollow

No real opinions here. It was always destined to eventually hit the Supreme Court, there's too much money behind the "Repeal" movement for it not to. This is just the first stage in what'll be a long and drawn out legal battle.

In before the Jophiel/gbaji 300-post snoozefest.

I suppose the only answer one can give right now is "we'll see," since this is still years away from any SCOTUS ruling.

Well then I'm still in before that then, aren't I?

Sure.

Against the State of Virginia, or the US?


Um... There's precedent for using tax code to encourage certain types of commerce activities (growing wheat during the depression, or purchasing car insurance for example), but never on such a broad scale. In all previous cases, the regulation was on a specific commerce activity. If you choose to be a farmer, you must grow X amount of wheat, or pay some tax/fine. If you operate a vehicle, you must insure the vehicle, or pay some tax/fine. In order to rule for the US, the courts effectively have to rule that "living" is a commerce activity, which brings up all sorts of bizarre problems, not to mention a presumed violation of the most basic human right. You can choose not to grow crops. You can choose not to drive a car. You can't choose not to live (or shouldn't be forced to make that choice in this context anyway). That's a whole different ball of yarn...


IMO, it would be a stunning reversal of common sense for the courts to do anything but strike down the health care requirement, but in terms of this case, it'll depend on the particulars. I'm not sure what exactly Virginia is making its case on or how applicable that'll end out being.

Isn't it already? Attempted suicide at least. Obviously, if you succeed, baring some sort of zombie recovery, no charges will be filed.

So there you go! So is it a slippery slope(tm) to suggest that the provision requiring the purchase of health care rests on the principle that since suicide isn't illegal, the choice to kill oneself represents a valid means to "opt out" of the government's health care plan? Cause that might be a toughie to argue in court...

I lol'd.

Nope. It's a constitutional argument. Among others, the 5th amendment is supremely relevant. The question boils down to whether "being alive" meets the criteria of "due process" required for the government to infringe upon the rights to life, liberty, and property as described in said amendment. The obvious counter is that due process cannot be said to be in effect if it applies to everyone no matter what they do. The absurdity I pointed out earlier is comical, but relevant. The only way to avoid the "due process" which will result in infringement of property (tax/fine), is to give up your life. It's a paradox:




Think about the ramifications of the bolded portion of the amendment if everyone who is alive can be required to obtain health insurance or suffer a fine. What historically defines legitimate due process is that said process contains a reasonable means to avoid the result. There's an absurdity factor to all of this which would be far more amusing if the health care cost calculations weren't based on an assumption that it would be legal to simply mandate that everyone buy health care.

But hey! We'll see how it turns out. I don't think it's hard to guess though. The only variables are how much of the legislation is affected and how far reaching the ruling ends out being.

You can't fathom that a law which effectively makes it illegal to be alive might just violate the constitution?

Maybe I just need to go really slow?

The 5th amendment states that a person cannot be deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without "due process". Due process means passage of some law which clearly defines the conditions under which one may be deprived of those things. So a law which punishes you for stealing with jail time connects the loss of liberty with the act of stealing. A penalty for driving a car without insurance connects the loss of property (the fine) with the act of driving without legally obtaining insurance.

What is the condition under which one must obtain health care? The condition is "living". Thus, the "due process" in this case effectively makes "living" an act which can be punished. But the "act" of living requires a choice. The only choice one can make in that case is to choose *not* to live. Hence, my earlier joke about suicide being viewed as a legitimate choice allowing one to "opt out" of health care.



The net result is that one must choose to be deprived of life, or of property, with no choice in between. Surely, you see how that violates the 5th amendment, right? Due process must provide a means by which one can avoid being deprived of any of those rights. But the law as written doesn't. Hence, it's unconstitutional right off the bat. I'm sure there are dozens of other arguments which can be used against it as well, that's just the most obvious one.

Edited, Aug 2nd 2010 7:54pm by gbaji

I'm not disputing the constitutional angle. Whether I agree or not, it's there. Gbaji's just spewing words without thinking about whether they make sense. If the insurance mandate is declared unconstitutional, it will likely be because the mandate deprives an individual of property (money, in this case) in a manner that is inconsistent with the power granted to the federal government by the constitution. It's not about punishing people for choosing not to terminate their own life as suggested by Gbaji. That's a horribly sadistic spin that only makes sense in the minds of idiots.

Furthermore, article 1 section 8 of the constitution declares "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;." This particular clause is at the root of precedents already set forth by the supreme court over such social welfare programs as Social Security and Medicare, and is likely to be tested with the insurance mandate as well.

Wouldn't that make fines for not purchasing auto insurance unconstitutional as well?

Not arguing that it's not unconstitutional or anything. Just wondering what the far-reaching effects of such a conclusion might be.

That argument sort of falls apart, though, when you live in places where there is no public transporation to get you to your job or your doctor's appointments, doesn't it?