• It’s still going to come down to the Supreme Court

    What I said last time still holds: Chill.

    Evidently, Judge Vinson ruled PPACA unconstitutional.  He specifically cited the lack of a severability clause.  I’m not a lawyer, but I still stand behind the following:

    1. This will come down to the Supreme Court.  Every other decision is just prelude.
    2. The lack of a severability clause is not a death knell for legislation that has parts ruled unconstitutional.
    3. There are many ways to fix PPACA without a mandate.

    This was all true back at the last big court decision, too.  Not that I expect anyone in the media to remember.

    • If the health insurance mandate holds up in the courts, does it mean that Government can require schooling and or education (my state actually requires home schoolers to educate their children in place of school attendance) and yet charge the rich and middle class directly to send their children to public schools? This could save a lot of money for tax payers.

      One of the stronger arguments for Government schools free to all (rather than means tested) has been that if you require it you need to pay for it. People hate unfunded mandates for states and even more for individuals.

    • Dr. Carroll,

      Doesn’t the fact that this is a unprecedented expansion of Federal power concern you at all if the mandate is ruled constitutional?

      Look at Floccina’s comments. We can now make hundreds of arguments in favor of forcing people to buy this or pay this tax or do this because it is in the “interest of the public”.

      Doesn’t that simple risk alone, which logically follows, concern you?

      • @Aaron G – Don’t know about Dr. Carroll, but I have enough faith in democracy that this law won’t lead to massive oppression. If we skidded down all the slippery slopes that people believe exist, we’d already be living in a totalitarian state. If we already do, then this law is the least of our concerns.

        I also would have no problem if the mandate were removed and replaced with some other mechanism. I’d make that swap today if it meant we could put this element of the debate behind us and move on to other matters.

    • @Aaron G

      Answered in a post

    • @ the Dr. s

      I would rather not base my own predictions on the consequences of a expansion of federal power on hope. It is common sense that people take things to the extreme/ abuse until something rolls them back end.

      For example, there was a intelligent post about how people were calling the first entitlements unconstitutional back in the 1930s to other 1960s. This is evidence of my concern. Entitlements have become the issue on the budget. Entitlements have grown into a monster that political forces are scared to touch (even though it is the main reason expenditure for our future budget crisis).

      Do you think that the Constitution was written with the premise of people will have faith in the government and it will not abuse its power? No, the Constitution was written to protect individuals from the government. A more personal question is would you give someone you know (a real individual) the same type of power that the individual mandate willingly offers the government.

      I agree that this debate is holding up the conversation. I just do not get why we have to jump into this messy debate on radical reform when we can implement gradual and agreed reforms that would help. Let’s try these things first before we implement a big new entitlement.