Senate Democrats: 'React to Supreme Court Arguments on ACA'

Source:Senate Democrats- From left to right: U.S. Senator's Chuck Schumer (Democrat, New York) and Patrick Leahy (Democrat, Vermont)

"Democratic senators Chuck Schumer (NY), Tom Harkin (IA), Patrick Leahy (VT) and Jack Reed (RI) weigh on Supreme Court arguments regarding the Affordable Care Act." 

From the Senate Democrats

If this post sounds familiar, it's because I originally wrote it at FRS FreeState. 

I don't mean to sound like a washed up rock singer who only has one line left, but I'm not a lawyer. But looking at this from a non-lawyer, I think the only constitutional questions about the Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare, before it was RomneyCare) is whether the Federal Government has the constitutional right to require Americans to buy a product over the private market, which is what health insurance is, or sign up for Medicaid, if they're eligible for Medicaid. T

The other constitutional question in the ACA being about the Medicaid expansion: can the Feds force the states to expand their Medicaid program to cover low-income, working adults and penalize them if they refuse to do so. 

There really are no other constitutional questions for the Affordable Care Act. Under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government has the right to regulate commerce in America. Health care and health insurance are both products in America. And under the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Government has to right to raise or cut taxes. And under the ACA, Americans who make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, but not enough money to afford private health insurance, are eligible for a tax subsidy to pay for private health insurance. 

I'm not a Conservative, not a Constitutional Conservative. I'm a constitutionalist though in the liberal (or classical liberal, if you prefer) sense and if you are looking at the Affordable Care Act in a constitutional conservative sense, I think it's easy to rule that the ACA is constitutional, except for perhaps the health care mandate and the Medicaid portion of the bill. Even if you don't like the law and Congress and the President to repeal the law. 

It's not the job of the Supreme Court to decide on the merits of a law, just the constitutionality of it. So throwing out the whole ACA by the Supreme Court simply because you don't like it, or because you are throwing out the mandate and the Medicaid prevision, wouldn't be constitutionally conservative.

New America Foundation: Emily Bazelon & Garrett Epps- 'Health Care & The Supreme Court: What Will The Decision Say About Constitutional Resilience?'

Source:New America Foundation- Emily Bazelon moderating this event.

"Health Care and the Supreme Court: 

What will the decision say about constitutional resilience?

This is an excerpt from the Future Tense "Resilience" event.  In it, Emily Bazelon asks Professor Garrett Epps to discuss the Supreme Court's upcoming decision on Health Care.

The ability to bounce back, to absorb shocks, to persevere, to retain functionality over time, to endure, to adapt, to succeed, to survive, to sustain... so many verbs are conjured up by the term "resilience." Whether we're talking about our bodies, our minds, our communities, our institutions or our natural environment, the R-word provides a conceptual framework for designing a better tomorrow. Please join us for a wide-ranging inquiry on what it means to be resilient and what a resilient future could look like.

Garrett Epps -- @profepps

Professor of Law, University of Baltimore

Legal Affairs Editor, The American Prospect

Moderator

Emily Bazelon-- @emilybazelon

Senior Editor, Slate" 

From the New America Foundation

I don't mean to sound like a washed up rock singer who only has one line left, but I'm not a lawyer. But looking at this from a non-lawyer, I think the only constitutional questions about the Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare, before it was RomneyCare) is whether the Federal Government has the constitutional right to require Americans to buy a product over the private market, which is what health insurance is, or sign up for Medicaid, if they're eligible for Medicaid. T

The other constitutional question in the ACA being about the Medicaid expansion: can the Feds force the states to expand their Medicaid program to cover low-income, working adults and penalize them if they refuse to do so. 

There really are no other constitutional questions for the Affordable Care Act. Under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government has the right to regulate commerce in America. Health care and health insurance are both products in America. And under the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Government has to right to raise or cut taxes. And under the ACA, Americans who make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, but not enough money to afford private health insurance, are eligible for a tax subsidy to pay for private health insurance. 

I'm not a Conservative, not a Constitutional Conservative. I'm a constitutionalist though in the liberal (or classical liberal, if you prefer) sense and if you are looking at the Affordable Care Act in a constitutional conservative sense, I think it's easy to rule that the ACA is constitutional, except for perhaps the health care mandate and the Medicaid portion of the bill. Even if you don't like the law and Congress and the President to repeal the law. 

It's not the job of the Supreme Court to decide on the merits of a law, just the constitutionality of it. So throwing out the whole ACA by the Supreme Court simply because you don't like it, or because you are throwing out the mandate and the Medicaid prevision, wouldn't be constitutionally conservative.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur- 'HBO's Game Change Preview'

Source:The Young Turks- actress Julianne Moore as Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, in HBO's Game Change.

Source:The Daily Press 

“A trailer of HBO’s ‘Game Change’ is reviewed by Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks. Tell us in the comment section below if you will be watching the movie?” 

From The Young Turks

I saw the movie last night about an hour of it actually. I think Ed Harris did a good job of playing Senator John McCain and Woody Harrelson did a good job of playing Steve Schmidt and Sarah Palin was clearly not up to the job of Vice President, or President right now.

We knew that Sarah Palin was not up from prime-time four years ago, so even the facts that were in the movie were not new. We knew that the McCain Campaign didn’t do a very good job of vetting Sarah Palin. Basically a little known Governor of Alaska, who may feel she lives in a foreign nation, because of how isolated Alaska is with the Continental United States.

I do have a hard time believing that Steve Schmidt and company would only spend 72 hours researching someone they barely knew if at all, because these people are way too smart for that. And that Senator McCain wouldn’t know how little research they did on his vice presidential nominee. The most important decision that a Presidential Nominee will make.

To take this movie at face value, you have to assume that the McCain Campaign was throwing a Hail Mary. Expecting to lose the presidential election to Barack Obama and that they needed someone who the Republican base would like personally, someone who could match Barack Obama when it comes to personality. Someone that would be seen as a political celebrity. If that’s what their goal, then they’ve more than succeeded. Because Sarah Palin is a political celebrity today, thanks to Senator John McCain. She has 100% name ID and is probably the most liked Republican in the party personally.

The McCain Campaign paid a heavy price for picking Sarah Palin politically with Governor Palin not being able to answer questions that a high school or college student could answer. Like what is the Federal Reserve and making statements that a high school or college student know aren’t true. Like the Vice President being the Leader of the Senate.

Julianne Moore is a fine actress, but way too upscale to not sound like an elitist not intentionally to play Sarah Palin. They would’ve been better off using Julia Dryfuss or even Tina Fey to play Palin. Not a very good movie and definitely a movie not a documentary. And probably light on facts as well.  

NORML: Keith Stroup- '40 Years of Ignorance: Conclusion'

Source:NORML- founder and legal counsel Keith Stroup.

"The conclusion of "40 Years of Ignorance" featuring NORML Founder and Legal Counsel, Keith Stroup discussing the 40th anniversary of the Shafer Commission and its implications for the marijuana movement and NORML iteslf." 

From NORML

This is just a theory, but I believe a big reason why supporters of marijuana legalization with regulation and taxation supporters (and I'm one of them) are winning the political battles now and why there's a good shot that marijuana will be legalized in at least two states this year, has to do with the economy. 

When the economy is slow and there's a lot of high unemployment, like now, people who are taxpayers pay more attention to where their tax dollars are going. I believe we now have a lot of taxpayers who see so much of their hard-earned, tax dollars going to prisons, instead of infrastructure, education, tax relief, and are wondering why that is. 

The War On Drugs is a major reason for that country where we might have 3-10, 4-10 Americans who are currently in jail or prison today because of some involvement in illegal narcotics, including marijuana, which is no more dangerous for people than alcohol. 

Me personally, I'm in favor of marijuana legalization with regulation and taxation, because I don't believe the government should be locking people up for what they do to themselves. Only when people hurt innocent people, but not because they get high or drunk. And I sure as hell don't want my tax dollars to go to more jails and prisons, because we're arresting more free adults for marijuana possession or personal usage. But that's me on ideological grounds. 

For most American taxpayers, I think they're more practical and the people who now support marijuana legalization, are thinking the War On Drugs is now a bad taxpayer investment.

Brookings Video: Russell Wheeler- 'Supreme Court Hears Health Care Challenge'

Source:Brookings Institution- talking to lawyer Russell Wheeler.

"Russell Wheeler: This case is about more than just who gets health care coverage; the high court's decision could have a profound impact on American constitutional policy and Congress' authority to regulate commerce." 

From the Brookings Institution

I'm not a lawyer (obviously) but I think the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion is obvious. This is a Federal/state health insurance program for low-income, as well as disabled Americans. Congress and the Obama Administration expanded it in 2010 under the Affordable Care Act to cover low-income workers and not just unemployed workers or people who are at home collecting Welfare Insurance. 

Medicare was expanded in 2003 to cover prescription drugs, by a Republican Administration and Congress. (By the way) There's no infringement on individual or states rights here, other than perhaps whether the Federal Government can take Medicaid money away from the states, if they don't expand their Medicaid programs to cover low-income workers, as well as non-workers. That might be the question there. 

As far as the individual mandate, if it's ruled by the Supreme Court as a tax, then it becomes constitutional just from that alone, because the Federal Government obviously has taxing authority. But, if the mandate is just ruled as a regulation, then the question will be does the Federal Government have the authority to require Americans to buy something over the private market or not. And again, I'm not a lawyer.

Liberty Pen: Professor Milton Friedman- 'Health Care in a Free Market (1978)'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman speaking to the Mayo Clinic about health care, in 1978.

"Milton Friedman fields questions from medical professionals at the Mayo Clinic regarding his advocacy of a free market in health care. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

To be frank and to simply just cut through the bullshit: if this was really a discussion about health care and health insurance in free market, the people, not government or the private health care industry, would decide for themselves where and how they get their health care. Not government or the private, for-profit, health care industry. 

I believe and at risk of playing mindreader, but we saw this in the health care debate of 2009-10 when people who were arguing against what became the Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare) were saying what we really need is a free market in health care, not more government control or subsidies. But that's not really what they're arguing for. What they want is an unregulated, private, for-profit, health care and insurance industry, where insurance companies get to decide how much everyone has to pay for their health care and insurance and what health care everyone should be allowed to get. 

I'm not in favor of rationing when it comes to health care when it comes from government. But pre-2010, it was the private, for-profit, health insurance industry that was rationing health care in this country, by saying they won't cover this, that, the other thing, and perhaps something else. And once a person reaches some financial cap as far as how much health care they've gotten because of their health insurance, those folks would lose their health insurance all together. 

What the Affordable Care Act does at the dismay of Socialists who want a socialized, government-run, health care system in America, is leave the private, for-profit, health care industry in place. But lays out a set of rules that this industry has to operate under, to protect health care consumers in this country. So you could argue that the proponents of the old health care system in America were making a conservative argument in 2009-10, because they were arguing in favor of the status-quo and conserving the old system. 

T.R. Reid: Health Care in America & The Rest of The World

"Author and journalist T.R. Reid talked about his book A Fine Mess: A Global Quest for a Simpler, Fairer, and More Efficient Tax System, in which he compares tax systems around the world." 

From CSPAN 

"Frontline Correspondent T. R. Reid examines health care around the world in the documentary, "Sick Around the World." 

From Charlie Rose 

"Globe-trotting reporter, T. R. Reid, sits down with witf's Smart Talk host Nell McCormack-Abom to discuss the state of the US healthcare system and how it compares to systems around the world. He's the author of New York Times bet-seller, "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care" and he has a new documentary out about better, cheaper health care in America." 

From Transforming Health 

"In his new book, The Healing of America, global quest for better, cheaper and fairer healthcare",  longtime Washington Post correspondent and bestselling author T.R. Reid took up that question as he recently traveled around the world to examine the health care systems and reforms in other countries. Reid joined us to shed some light on what Americans can learn by looking beyond our borders." 

From PBS 

The question is not should everyone in America has affordable health care or not (at least not for me) but the question is how should it be paid for and who should run it? Which is the post ObamaCare debate at least: how do we get the best and most affordable health care system. 

Leftists obviously want government running at least the health insurance system, if not entire health care system. Hyper-partisan Republicans, (at least when they're being honest) as well as Libertarians, want to go back to the old system pre-2010, where the private health insurance industry, essentially runs the entire health care system. 

And most Americans are somewhere in-between where we like our private hospitals and choice as far as where we get our health care and health insurance, but we want it to be affordable for everyone. And the real debate with perhaps 3-5 Americans is how best to make our private health care system affordable for everyone.