I just learned FL is going neural on CD setting -can someone confirm- this will help tremendously- however- if the state divides itself by partisan registration then the results would not be that good as it would dilute D concentrated power-still better than now, e.g., IA is like this an even yesterday D won almost every seat- this would happen in Cal too where D may actually increase represnetation depending how populated the western part of the state is.
I think there is some hope on the Sanders' provision and the cap (could it be further lowered as to income?); but the underlying argument is accurate- our political leaders have not taken the temperature on this issue and its impact is unknown. Maybe is not as bad politically as it seems or maybe it is worse. I would like to see some hard numbers on who is affected and how they vote.
Is that the House bill? I did not find that section in the Senate Bill- I did see that the subsidy threshold allowed is $11,900 but reduced proportionally up to those making 400% of poverty whatever that may be. I did not see a hard cap.
I am not going to delve how each is situation is different- but they are (nobody is making anyone buy a house)- enough said that this is what the court would look at and I might add, where the folks at Volokh have presented a persuasive case.
Ok "drastically" was hyperbolic- but while Lopez represented a separation of powers it did also represent something unseen in the Constitution. Frankly, whether I buy insurance, that is the decision to buy insurance or not, does not affect commerce. If I don't buy insurance I am not engaging in interstate commerce. The "penalty" provision is flawed because it is discriminatory: treating people with the same income differently. I am not a constitutional scholar and I know that one can argue different results under the law and all these arguments can be further refined. Yes, Volokoh is loaded with know nothing libertarians but that has nothing to do with the arguments advanced. Since I do not think insurance reform (that should be the name of the bill) will survive in its current form we will not see what the Supremes have to say about this; in the end one really does not know. One thing is for sure, it behooves those involved to place a severability clause in the legislation.
The key reason is because it represents a new power not stated in the Constitution and goes against any classical model of governance (see decision on line item veto). I think the more commentators saw the issue in Volokh the more they saw the problem. To be sure this has nothing to do with the commerce clause and everything to do with taxation. Sadly, the commerce clause has been viewed as a catch-all constitutional provision but recent Supreme Courts have dramatically trimmed its sails (see gun/school regulation).
Let me cut to the grain- in Virginia fours years ago- Gov. Kaine passed abuser driver traffic fines for the purpose of revenue enhancement. The net effect was a tax increase on those least able to afford it(you can imagine the demographics). It was horribly regressive and very unpopular. The fines were rescinded but not the feeling that dems are willing to stick it to the little guy to achieve most important policy goals (in this case: money for roads). What does that have to with health care reform? We are doing the same thing- welfaring the least fortunate and sticking with mandatory fees those a little more fortunate. Sorry, this is not my idea of progressivity. Essentially we are raising "private taxes" (which are probably unconstituonal) on those least fortunate... and many of us who work for corporations, government or similar institutions with full subsidized insurance seem surprise they don't like it? Do you think a family of four with a salary of 60K can afford private insurance? And since they can't, we are going to remove another 3K from their income? I can see the pontificators saying maybe those people should not have a family- perhaps we should outlaw sex? No, this bill is essentially sticking to hard working Americans that cannot get affordable insurance and represents everything I don't believe in on what I though was the most important democratic party issue. Obama will not lose my vote over this (he could have if he had selected Kaine) but my congressman will and I will give hundreds of dollars to his opponent (thought I probably would abstain in the election).
In fact, hospitals are not required to provide emergency health care. However, by law, if hospitals accept federal funds then they do have to offer the mentioned services. It is a voluntary acquiescence. I do like your hypothetical- you should be a law school professor.
And school segregation was in place for 64 years before Brown v Board Of Education. Also doesn't Mass. offer something akin to a PO? (that makes a difference). I spoke to a well regarded state level appellate judge and he said that the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate is not even close. It is as if you were ordered to write a check to Boeing for defense.