Off-Topic

I was replying to 1thegame's post, not yours.

oops. sorry.

I really like how so many here are entirely convinced in the unconstitutionality of the provision, even given the overwhelming majority of legal scholars and jurists who say otherwise

There's a small chance it will fall, no doubt. But to call it anything other than that is lolworthy, political opinions aside. This isn't 1905 and Lochner has been dead for three quarters of a century.

But by all means, continue in the rabid march to conclusory statements

So I take it you are for mandatory Life insurance for every person too right? Cause I can give you the exact same scenario for people that dont have life insurance.

The fundamental problem with this solution is that it comes from the premise that the uninsured lack insurance because they lack the means to pay for it. President Obama actually cited a figure of 45-47 million uninsured - these are the folks that are racking up hospital bills and making us taxpayers pay for it. However, some 5 million of those are illegal aliens (another 5 million are legal immigrants, but not U.S. citizens). 10 million or so make $75,000 or more, so would seem to have the means to pay for an insurance policy but choose not to. Another 10 million are eligible for existing programs but do not enroll for whatever reason. Other, untold millions are unable to get coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

Sometimes the only solutions to a problem are worse than the problem itself.

Maybe easier.....but a constutitional democracy doesnt work on whats easier. (Actually...the cost is past on in higher premiums and higher cost of services....not tax dollars. So it impacts other people that use medical services and not those that chose not to)

The point being...the same exact argument can be made for someone lacking Life insurance. Dude has 2 or 3 kids...make a good living of say...100K...maybe even 150K. He owns a house and two cars. No Life insurance. He dies. Boom. No life insurance and little to no liquid savings. Wife cant afford the house...house gets taken. HAve a hard time making ends meet...food stamps and other forms of public assistance. Should we manadate everyone must buy term life insurance? It sure would be easier. Heck premiums would go down for everyone...because all adults would be in the market.

BTW....unisured people arent getting 500K worth of treatment for the most part. But lets assume they do all get treatment for the unexpected tree falling. With health insurance coverage....we are paying for that ....AND MORE.

We are paying for fertility treatments. We are paying for autism therapy. We are paying for hemroids. etc. etc. The cost is even more. The fiction that we will be "saving" money by preventive care vs. spending on emergency/diaster care is pretty well debunked by lots of folks. Krauthammer had a very good article a ahile back on it. Only way it works would be some serious serious rationing. No way thats going to happen.

Well like the exact stats on the uninsured. If a lot of them can't afford it because of a previous condition than that would be moot under the current law. You could make the insurance cheaper by doing a tort reform and allowing insurance companies to see across state lines. I just don't think there is a situation where the govt can handle this better than private industry but still think it needs to be done. I also don't think it should ever be free. You should always need a co-payment. People who get things 100% free tend to abuse them.

Probably a different topic but if an immigrant wants to come over they have to pay into the system to get out from the system. And Obama said health insurance won't be giving to illegals so that's not an issue.

All I'm saying is that JUST doing a subsidy like you suggested isn't likely to solve the problem because the problem for 2/3 or more of the uninsured population is not a lack of funds. Yes, the current law prohibits denial of coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, but you can't have that prohibition without the individual mandate, otherwise people would just wait to get sick to get coverage.

I agree with you on tort reform and allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines, but again to the extent that those things reduce the cost of health insurance they won't do much to reduce the uninsured rolls if the majority of people are on there due to something other than inability to pay for coverage.

If they can get it at work they can't get it from the govt. Other people get it free. If you choose not to take free insurance than you get what you get. You can never protect everyone from themselves no matter what you do.

lololololololol

Sorry. I really can't comment on this thread because of where I work but this is HILARIOUS. UVA Law isn't even the most conservative law school in Virginia. Probably not even top three... hell top five.

Yes, I read the opinion. Hudson didnt ignore N&P. N&P is a red herring. Its well decide that N&P only comes into play if the clause/act is otherwise constitutional....otherwise it would far to easy to showhorn unconstitutional regulation on the back of other regulatory schemes and simply rely on necessary and proper. Legal scholars are ceratinly far more split that 5 or 10% on the individual mandate being an unconstitutional expansion of the Commerce Clause. Im not sure if you are spending your time reading which blogs or what.

UVa really hasnt been that conservative for the last decade. Hell....Mason is more conservative than UVa. Retard on Lochner??? Lochner has nothing to do with this. If you dont think the indiidual mandate surviving is much better than 50-50....you better hurry up and take some 3rd year seminars because it is very much that close. Heck...this case is more closely aligned with the Morrison case. Go read that Commerce Clause decision and get back to me. I wrote a law review note a decade ago on the Morrison case so this is very familiar gorund to me.

I know Hudson well. I've appeared in front of him and argued cases more than a dozen times. Dude isnt Scalia...but he is brighter than most/many on the District court bench.

What year at UVa 1L, 2L or 3L?