Off-Topic

There are some good arguments on both sides of this issue, if it is to be decided on the law, and not on politics and ideology.

My concern goes beyond the mandate and centers on the incredible power and descretion allowed the Secretary of Human Services to create regulations (in effect laws) based on his/her own conclusions. This was an abdication of the Congress' role, though certainly not an unheard off scheme. Still with everyone's lives and health at stake, who wants a single person with that power.

I can change the thread title, I guess, but IMO the current title is still accurate. What should I change it to?

ok--but if I'm genetically predisposed to a malady, that's not my choice and when it develops I'll need care. No insurance = public burden.

If I never eat vegetables and never work out I'll probably be a burden too, can the government force me to buy salad when I go out to eat and to buy a gym membership?

I think that is really what could be a sticking point for Kennedy, is if the Solicitor has a hard time identifying a limiting principle. In effect there has been very little limit on Congressional power under the commerce clause since the New Deal. But I don't think Kennedy will go along with making it entirely a dead letter and (effectively, if not explicitly) overturning precedent like Lopez.

Can't wait for the government to mandate this. /snark

But seriously, one of the things I'm most concerned about is what justifications the government will come up with to exert more and more control over our lives, all in the name of keeping healthcare costs down. Don't think it won't happen...this is one of the slippery slopes government always falls into when it gets too big for its britches, much like speed cameras, soda taxes, raiding specific funds like transportation, gas station cleanup (Connecticut), etc.

I'm new here, what does the 10_ mean.

I'm just not all that up to date with all this newfangled techno-wizardry stuff.

People would do well to keep in mind the idiom, "He who pays the piper calls the tune." It always sounds good at the beginning when government promises to pay for things for you. But then your personal decisions create a budgetary impact for the government, so in the name of controlling "costs" they begin controlling YOU. Suddenly people discover that that free money wasn't so free after all, but had lots and lots of strings attached. If I'm paying for your healthcare, why shouldn't I be able to tell you what you can eat, how much you have to exercise, what treatment you can get, what treatment you MUST get?

Yup.

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) schools HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on the costs and broken promises of ObamaCare.

JOHNSON: So now we, we’ve reduced that $143 billion by $86 billion – by not getting revenue from the CLASS Act – and now $111 billion because we’ve increased the mandatory costs of the exchanges, correct?

SEBELIUS: I’m assuming the numbers are correct. I’m sorry I don’t have them.

JOHNSON: So, when you add those together, that’s $197 billion added to the first 10-year cost estimate of Obamacare, so now we are instead of saving $143 billion, we are adding $54 billion to our deficit, correct?

SEBELIUS: Sir I –

JOHNSON: We’ll submit that to the record. But, that’s basically true. So instead of saving $143 billion, by this administration’s own figures and budget, we’re now adding $54 billion to our deficit in the first 10 years. To me, that would be the first broken promise.

I agree, opponents shouldn't conflate the issues. They should be able to make them both at the same time, though.

I don't think anyone was conflating costs with legality...just consolidating the discussion of both into one thread.

T-4 days. Let's gooo. I can't decide whether to nerd up this thread even further or not.