Burial Insurance is called Life Insurance.
SSI provides $255.00 at the death of a citizen.
Is the best they can come up with to oppose this law? Seriously.
They don't have any, none at all, case law to oppose this, even if it is a shadow of implication? Nothing, huh? Wow.
Commerce of any commodity of any product is not identical to any other commodity simply because it is a commodity. The reference to cars is not a viable argument because when people purchase cars they have exclusive rights to the use of that car. When people purchase health insurance they are absorbing the costs of those uninsured even though the uninsured is not using their health insurance. It is a NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT, a viable analogy.
I am not impressed.
In purchasing a car, if there are less purchasers the price goes down to attract those fewer buyers. In health insurance if there are fewer purchasers the price goes up because the burden of the pay-out is carried by fewer people. There is no analogy.
This is like a side show and not a legal hearing based in fact.
Lockner v. New York (click here)
I. GARCLA AND DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE ANALYSIS (click here)
In attempting to preserve landfill space through regulations which either
discriminate against or unduly burden" consumption by out-of-state interests, a state quickly finds itself in the midst of a struggle between state sovereignty rights and Congress's commerce clause powers. When the Supreme Court disengaged economic substantive due process rights from the fourteenth amendment in 1937,16 the Court simultaneously cleared the way for the modern Court's expansive interpretation df Congress's commerce clause powers. For over half a century, the Court's interpretation of the commerce clause enabled Congress to regulate activity in essentially any area regardless of the degree of its actual impact (or lack thereof) on interstate commerce.' Thus, where fundamental notions of state sovereignty
are allegedly infringed by Congress's seemingly omnipotent commerce clause powers, significant disagreement results...
SSI provides $255.00 at the death of a citizen.
Is the best they can come up with to oppose this law? Seriously.
They don't have any, none at all, case law to oppose this, even if it is a shadow of implication? Nothing, huh? Wow.
Commerce of any commodity of any product is not identical to any other commodity simply because it is a commodity. The reference to cars is not a viable argument because when people purchase cars they have exclusive rights to the use of that car. When people purchase health insurance they are absorbing the costs of those uninsured even though the uninsured is not using their health insurance. It is a NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT, a viable analogy.
I am not impressed.
In purchasing a car, if there are less purchasers the price goes down to attract those fewer buyers. In health insurance if there are fewer purchasers the price goes up because the burden of the pay-out is carried by fewer people. There is no analogy.
This is like a side show and not a legal hearing based in fact.
Lockner v. New York (click here)
Summary of Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937 (1905).
Facts (click here)
The Bakeshop Act was a New York state labor law which prohibited bakery employees from working for more than sixty hours per week or ten hours per day. Lochner permitted an employee to work in his bakery for more than sixty hours in one week and was convicted of his second offense and fined. Lochner appealed his conviction on the grounds that the law violated his freedom to contract under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
UNITED STATES v. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP, Inc., et al. NOYES, Com'r of Agriculture and Markets of New York v. SAME. DAIRYMEN'S LEAGUE CO-OP. ASS'N, Inc., v. SAME. METROPOLITAN CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS BARGAINING AGENCY, Inc., v. SAME.
Scalia and Roberts embark in arguing about the future beyond the law itself. I didn't know they had a crystal ball. I can't believe there are Supreme Court Justices is worried about the degrees this law will be manipulated once everyone is in the market. That is a different lawsuit. What seems to be said is that once everyone is insured they will be exploited in other manners. That isn't this law and there is no mention of the future. The only 'future' noted in the Affordable Care Act are the boards, including members of citizens, that will collect information. There is no dictate to the use of that information.
I can't believe they are playing with semantics between penalty and tax. The penalty is indeed a penalty. Either a person enrolls with a health insurance policy. It is collected as a tax on the IRS forms because it is a method of revenue collection by the USA. The revenue collected is real for those not subscribing to health insurance. So, it is a taxing principle with a purpose. It is legitimate and if it is called a penalty and written on the tax form as a penalty. It is revenue. Why do the semantics even play into this? It is revenue, undefined revenue year to year based on behaviors of Americans.
CLEMENTE, CARBON
Emergency room visits do not solve the problems of the uninsured; to even consider that as a viable option is hideous. People die under that dynamic. It is crude, cruel and demeaning.
Ginsburg is correct. Social Security is a delayed gratification recognized by law that everyone has to participate in order to provide the benefit. It is a lifetime responsibility for every American. Social Security Insurance is even more 'distant' from any health insurance because the benefit from being a member of a health insurance exchange can be provided now and not at a later age.
Facts
Maryland (P) enacted a statute imposing a tax on all banks operating in Maryland not chartered by the state. The statute provided that all such banks were prohibited from issuing bank notes except upon stamped paper issued by the state. The statute set forth the fees to be paid for the paper and established penalties for violations.
The Second Bank of the United States was established pursuant to an 1816 act of Congress. McCulloch (D), the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States, issued bank notes without complying with the Maryland law. Maryland sued McCulloch for failing to pay the taxes due under the Maryland statute and McCulloch contested the constitutionality of that act. The state court found for Maryland and McCulloch appealed.
Facts
The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 (AAA) set quotas on the amount of wheat put into interstate commerce and established penalties for overproduction. The goal of the Act was to stabilize the market price of wheat by preventing shortages or surpluses. Filburn (P) sold part of his wheat crop and used the rest for his own consumption. The amount of wheat Filburn produced for his own consumption combined with the amount he sold exceeded the amount he was permitted to produce.
Secretary of Agriculture Wickard (D) assessed a penalty against him. Filburn refused to pay, contending that the Act sought to limit local commercial activity and therefore was unconstitutional because it exceeded the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.
Filburn brought this lawsuit seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Act and a declaratory judgment that the wheat marketing provisions of the AAA were unconstitutional for exceeding the scope of Congress’s commerce power. The court below, a district court panel of three judges, entered judgment for Filburn and the Supreme Court granted cert.
Federalist paper no.45 (click here)
by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and James Madison
Analysis
Having established in previous papers the necessity of giving the national government all the powers described in the Constitution, Madison now seeks to reassure his audience that such a powerful general government will not threaten the remaining authority of the state governments and render them wholly subservient. This paper is further evidence of how suspicious the American people were of the proposed national government....
Facts
The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (GFSZA) made it unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that he knew or had reasonable cause to believe was a school zone. Alfonso Lopez, Jr. (D), a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed and loaded handgun into his high school and was arrested and charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Act....
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) (click here)
The McCulloch v. Maryland decision in 1819 fanned the flames of controversy over States' rights and national supremacy. By 1824, Chief Justice John Marshall had reached the zenith of his historic tenure on the Court and was perfectly willing to consider the most difficult areas of law.
As the American frontier moved west and settlers pushed beyond the Appalachians into the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys, the question of commercial development became very important. In 1811, the National Government began construction of the great National Road to the west through the Cumberland Gap, and State governments engaged in a frenzy of canal building, capped by New York State's 363-mile wonder, the Erie Canal. Taxation and regulation of commerce through transportation was an important source of State income in the early years of the Republic, and interstate rivalries over rights to license and collect fees from transportation services became heated. Intense economic pressures mounted as some businessmen called for more free trade while other argued for States' rights in the management of internal matters of the State...
PROMOTING Commerce v. Regulating Commerce
That is another case. The Affordable Care Act exists due to commerce that already exists.
In attempting to preserve landfill space through regulations which either
discriminate against or unduly burden" consumption by out-of-state interests, a state quickly finds itself in the midst of a struggle between state sovereignty rights and Congress's commerce clause powers. When the Supreme Court disengaged economic substantive due process rights from the fourteenth amendment in 1937,16 the Court simultaneously cleared the way for the modern Court's expansive interpretation df Congress's commerce clause powers. For over half a century, the Court's interpretation of the commerce clause enabled Congress to regulate activity in essentially any area regardless of the degree of its actual impact (or lack thereof) on interstate commerce.' Thus, where fundamental notions of state sovereignty
are allegedly infringed by Congress's seemingly omnipotent commerce clause powers, significant disagreement results...
Justice Sotomayor is correct, there is no class of people identified that would exclusively have the distinction of being uninsured. It is a generalized condition that occurs among all classes. In that is the understanding 'the limiting principle' is not applicable to the ACA.
There are hospitals throwing people out on the street. The emergency room is not the answer for all health problems. If a person with an 'illness' and not an injury enters the ER for treatment there is no continuity of care or any follow up with a primary physician for treatment of an illness. While a bone can be set in an emergency room, a heart condition cannot be forever treated from an ER. It is a ridiculous answer to the health needs of the people of the USA.
? To not purchase health care insurance effects no one.? BUT. Defaulting on health care providers do effect everyone. That is not a legitimate point of view because having health insurance benefits providers that are faced with raising rates to consumers when they are defaulted upon. That is a nonsense argument.
Carbon does not like the plenary powers of Congress. Congress has to have plenary powers because the problems facing the nation is not limited. Problems can come from every venue with any dynamic. The fact the ACA is a commerce problem cannot be limited as 'exclusively' outside the powers of Congress to address. If that is going to occur, the Plutocracy then is untouchable. It's ridiculous. A definition of sovereignty includes broad plenary powers to address all the venues of a nation. Carbon wants to set health insurance in an independent paradigm outside the reach of Congress. That is an insult to the sovereignty of the USA.
There are hospitals throwing people out on the street. The emergency room is not the answer for all health problems. If a person with an 'illness' and not an injury enters the ER for treatment there is no continuity of care or any follow up with a primary physician for treatment of an illness. While a bone can be set in an emergency room, a heart condition cannot be forever treated from an ER. It is a ridiculous answer to the health needs of the people of the USA.
? To not purchase health care insurance effects no one.? BUT. Defaulting on health care providers do effect everyone. That is not a legitimate point of view because having health insurance benefits providers that are faced with raising rates to consumers when they are defaulted upon. That is a nonsense argument.
Carbon does not like the plenary powers of Congress. Congress has to have plenary powers because the problems facing the nation is not limited. Problems can come from every venue with any dynamic. The fact the ACA is a commerce problem cannot be limited as 'exclusively' outside the powers of Congress to address. If that is going to occur, the Plutocracy then is untouchable. It's ridiculous. A definition of sovereignty includes broad plenary powers to address all the venues of a nation. Carbon wants to set health insurance in an independent paradigm outside the reach of Congress. That is an insult to the sovereignty of the USA.
