House to vote on health care reform Sunday.

[Admiral Yi]

My wife has a certain medical condition that requires a lot of medical visits in increasing frequency.  Haven't paid a dime.

I think DP's question was about the part of the US outside of Canada.

[HisMajestyBOB]

My wife has a certain medical condition that requires a lot of medical visits in increasing frequency.  Haven't paid a dime.

Tax evader.

[Hansmeister]

http://www.acslaw.org/files/Lazarus%20Issue%20Brief%20Final.pdf#page=2

An interesting look at the constitutionality of the mandate. It's from a Liberal think tank, but still, IMO, pretty persuasive.

I do hope this means Hans will shut up about judicial activism now that he's begging the Supreme Court to find that exchanging money for services doesn't fall under commerce.

But if you don't buy health insurance there is no commerce by definition, no?  So how can the act of not engaging in commerce be regulated by the commerce clause?

[grumbler]

http://www.acslaw.org/files/Lazarus%20Issue%20Brief%20Final.pdf#page=2

An interesting look at the constitutionality of the mandate. It's from a Liberal think tank, but still, IMO, pretty persuasive.

I do hope this means Hans will shut up about judicial activism now that he's begging the Supreme Court to find that exchanging money for services doesn't fall under commerce.

But if you don't buy health insurance there is no commerce by definition, no?  So how can the act of not engaging in commerce be regulated by the commerce clause?

Read the article.

[Faeelin]

I suppose even without the Commerce Clause, how can you say this isn't in the interests of "general welfare", but Social Security is, as defined in Helvering?

[garbon]

Don't bet the ranch on it.

I'm willing to bet the farm. I don't have much on it besides those pesky farmhands.

[Hansmeister]

Read the article.

I did.  The argument in favour of the Commerce Clause is extremely weak to laughable.  The argument on the General Welfare clause is much more persuasive.

[Razgovory]

Read the article.

I did.  The argument in favour of the Commerce Clause is extremely weak to laughable.  The argument on the General Welfare clause is much more persuasive.

Use your great legal mind to tell us why.  Cite cases and legal precedents.  Don't use any blogs or anything like that to help you.  Just use pure Hans.

[garbon]

Use your great legal mind to tell us why.  Cite cases and legal precedents.  Don't use any blogs or anything like that to help you.  Just use pure Hans.

I've seen that video of him. I don't want to see pure Hans.

[Razgovory]

Use your great legal mind to tell us why.  Cite cases and legal precedents.  Don't use any blogs or anything like that to help you.  Just use pure Hans.

I've seen that video of him. I don't want to see pure Hans.

Oh, don't like your Hans black eh?  How about some Hans with sugar and cream?  A nice creamy Hans, just oozing out of that uniform.  Mouthwatering.

[garbon]

I only like creampuffs when they have a nice filling.

[Razgovory]

I only like creampuffs when they have a nice filling.

That would be a problem.  Hans is just filled with bullshit.

[The Minsky Moment]

But if you don't buy health insurance there is no commerce by definition, no?  So how can the act of not engaging in commerce be regulated by the commerce clause?

The Commerce Clause is not phrased in terms of regulating individuals who engage in commerce; it is phrased in terms of the power to regulate commerce, tout court.  The commerce being regulated here is the sale and consumption of health care services.  The Necessary and Proper clause permits Congresss to adopt any needful regulation to effectuate its regulatory scheme for that interstate market.

you don't have to believe me (I know you won't) - read Justice Scalia's concurrence in Raich.

[The Minsky Moment]

I found the part about inactivity being activity and direct taxation not all that persuasive.

Elaborate? 

BTW, what is a capitation tax?

A direct tax of a flat amount per person (per head).
Apparently the legislation gets around this by imposing the tax on AGI (income) but then capping it at a very low amount.  Analytically this is very close to a capitation tax and arguably amounts to an artful dodge, but the direct taxation clause is kind of a constitutional anachronism and the Court is not likely to bend over to knock out the law on this basis.

[jimmy olsen]

Virginia will challenge the law.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/HEAL221S1_20100322-000603/332103/#comments