Supreme Court Hearings on Health Care Law Move to Question Medicaid

[Conley]

The Supreme Court ended three momentous days of argument Wednesday over the constitutionality of the Obama administration's signature health-care law, with opponents pushing their rhetoric into fundamental questions about the limits of Washington's power.

Conservative justices suggested that if one part of the law is judged unconstitutional, the entire health overhaul with hundreds of provisions may have to fall with it. In the afternoon, the case took a twist that upended expectations, as the conservatives challenged the basis of the federal-state Medicaid program.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577308482810887976.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

This is something I've wondered about - how supporters of the VA medical system and Medicaid can be so critical of government sponsored health care.

[Peter1469]

I don't think that the challenge of the increased State burden for medicare in Obamacare will go anywhere. It certainly should; but SCOTUS doesn't have the balls to go that far.

[MMC]

I don't think that the challenge of the increased State burden for medicare in Obamacare will go anywhere. It certainly should; but SCOTUS doesn't have the balls to go that far.

Why do you say that Pete? About the state burden?

[Peter1469]

Why do you say that Pete? About the state burden?

SCOTUS is not about to make a lot of changes to current case law. If they say that the mandate is beyond the Congress's Commerce Clause power I expect they will stop there. They are not also going to say the Congress has to stop their underfunded mandates to the States. Although I would.

[MMC]

Thanks I was trying to understand what you mean. What if the SCOTUS did. Just by chance so to speak.

[Peter1469]

I would be very surprised to see SCOTUS make such radical changes at the same time. It would be historic. It would probably confuse Congress.

[RollingWave]

I would be very surprised to see SCOTUS make such radical changes at the same time. It would be historic. It would probably confuse Congress.
As if they need any help in that :grin:

still yeah, if Medicade was struck down too that would make for some very amusing Jon Stewarts shows at least, and some really desperate GOP strategies / politicians

[Conley]

:laugh: No doubt about both those points.

[Mainecoons]

Medicaid, and indeed all of those unfunded/underfunded mandates are dearly in need of a Constitutional check. IMO, they are one of the most blatant classes of rampant abuse of the Commerce clause by liberal courts. There is simply nothing in the Constitution that gives any permission whatsoever for the Federal government to force the taxpayers of any state to subsidize welfare programs like Medicaid. IMO.

[Peter1469]

I agree

[RollingWave]

Medicaid, and indeed all of those unfunded/underfunded mandates are dearly in need of a Constitutional check. IMO, they are one of the most blatant classes of rampant abuse of the Commerce clause by liberal courts. There is simply nothing in the Constitution that gives any permission whatsoever for the Federal government to force the taxpayers of any state to subsidize welfare programs like Medicaid. IMO.

Tax dollar goes to all sorts of places, if we were consistent with this logic I would think that most of the non defense spending of the US budget could be revoked and one could even argue that many infrastructure are "welfare subsidized by taxpayer money". let alone things like agricultural subsidies .

Of course one could make an more abosalutist claim this way, and if we were to go back to the basic premise that in the end it's the states that can decided these things then I'm fine with that, just that I see the general irony of the GOP hardly being against expanding executive / federal power in areas that suits them. but then bring this up when it's on issue they don't like? (not that the dems don't do the same.)

This is perhaps one of the more confusing aspect of American politics, that at certain points the arguement is mixed up with government rights vs federal rights .

[Mainecoons]

Yes, that is exactly the point. Most non-defense spending in the U.S. budget probably couldn't stand a Constitutional test if the Commerce clause is followed in line with the clear intent of the founders. I don't think the Constitution prevents revenue sharing but it was intended to prevent Federal interference in local matters and it was also intended that the Federal government would be limited to those powers and tasks explicitly spelled out in the document.

I am reminded of the joke that we should give the Constitution to Iraq since we don't follow it anyway. More than a grain of truth there. Had we followed it, there would be no way that we'd have this gargantuan, out of control monster in Washington D.C. that we have today. It is very ironic that our Canadian neighbors have managed to maintain their Constitutional focus on a republic of provinces while we have become mainly a D.C. run dictatorship of a governing elite bought and paid for by special interests.

[RollingWave]

Yes, that is exactly the point. Most non-defense spending in the U.S. budget probably couldn't stand a Constitutional test if the Commerce clause is followed in line with the clear intent of the founders. I don't think the Constitution prevents revenue sharing but it was intended to prevent Federal interference in local matters and it was also intended that the Federal government would be limited to those powers and tasks explicitly spelled out in the document.

I am reminded of the joke that we should give the Constitution to Iraq since we don't follow it anyway. More than a grain of truth there. Had we followed it, there would be no way that we'd have this gargantuan, out of control monster in Washington D.C. that we have today. It is very ironic that our Canadian neighbors have managed to maintain their Constitutional focus on a republic of provinces while we have become mainly a D.C. run dictatorship of a governing elite bought and paid for by special interests.

I see what your getting at here, and it is true that the current US system seems to be a ways off from the original setup which was supposedly that the US was simply a bunch of independent states that decide to share a similar foreign policy (and defense interest), but this isn't the late 18th C anymore and I'm under the impression that all the stuff from the civil war up to WW2 kinda screwed up the orignal system quite a bit. it is a problematic situation, and the great diversity of various states makes it all the more so.

I think in the end both sides need to make some realistic comprimise, this isn't the 18th C anymore or even the 19th C where the US can basically have no standing army and it's primary concerns were a bunch of stone age wildmens. at the same time the US is also a ways from the civil war and it is not like reverting back more towards state autonomy would result in a return of slavery and/or seccession.

And of course , I do still like to point out the general inconsistency of both party using the Federal rights limit thing only when it suits their agenda.

[Mainecoons]

Well, you're raising defense repeatedly which I don't argue against as being a legitimate Federal role. Unfortunately, because of the lack of fiscal contraints on the Federal government, the Department of Defense seems to have morphed into the Department of Offense and it doesn't seem to matter who is in the White House as to whether or not the U.S. Federal government engages frequently in foreign military misadventurism and policing the world, all on borrowed money of course.

I think we should look at pre-Lyndon Johnson America as a logical resetting and starting point, with the exception of civil rights, obviously. (It was those nasty Republicans who made the Civil Rights act possible, remember?)

I would suggest that the Federal government be limited to spending absolutely no more than 20 percent of GNP on anything and everything (including the off budget scams) and required to collect in taxes what it spends. Welfare and education would be returned to the state level as per the Constitution. Agriculture would be shut down as would the Department of Education. Energy would be rolled back to its previous role. The military would be cut in half and reoriented to become a defensive force again.

[Peter1469]

I see what your getting at here, and it is true that the current US system seems to be a ways off from the original setup which was supposedly that the US was simply a bunch of independent states that decide to share a similar foreign policy (and defense interest), but this isn't the late 18th C anymore and I'm under the impression that all the stuff from the civil war up to WW2 kinda screwed up the orignal system quite a bit. it is a problematic situation, and the great diversity of various states makes it all the more so.

I think in the end both sides need to make some realistic comprimise, this isn't the 18th C anymore or even the 19th C where the US can basically have no standing army and it's primary concerns were a bunch of stone age wildmens. at the same time the US is also a ways from the civil war and it is not like reverting back more towards state autonomy would result in a return of slavery and/or seccession.

And of course , I do still like to point out the general inconsistency of both party using the Federal rights limit thing only when it suits their agenda.

Do you want to amend the Constitution to remove the amendment procedure? It seems like you have decided it is not needed.