The federal court system had received an enormous amount of attention lately over a Florida District Court's decision to overturn "Obamacare" on the grounds that it exceeds Congress' constitutional authority to regulate commerce. I've read persuasive articles agreeing with this decision, but here is one that is equally persuasive in the other direction. After reading this opinion, are you still in favor of the lower court's ruling???
Constitutional showdown
The constitutionality of obamacare undermines its true harm to America's capitalist foundation. Not only has it been contributing and will continue to contribute unprecedented sums of money that neither the nation nor the citizens have, but the many regulations that it places on existing policies of commerce shall be what is deemed unconstitutional rather than the enactment of Obamacare itself. Obamacare is driving many businesses of the private sector into bankruptcy. Many programs already exist making it easy for underprivileged individuals to receive health care. Instead, the government deems it necessary to mandate health insurance policies all across the board. Such policy would not only take tax payer money from the middle to upper class to supplement the lower class, but also force all businesses to provide care for their employees. Where will the extra money come from? Nowhere. It doesn't exist. At this point the upperclass will be pulled down while the lower class is given subsidized care. But why should such a program even exist? Simply to take over the private sector, eliminate established businesses, and increase government power. Canada has a similar program and they are running away as fast as possible. I love America too much. :( obamacare=1step closer to socialism. IMO.
ReplyDeleteMichael Tomey period 2
LOL michaelll <3 2:28 hardcore man
DeleteHell yeahhhh booiiiiii my bro!
Delete<3 Fernando Arellano
The Obamacare shows how much power the Constitution of our own country gives to our congress. The congress uses the interstate commerce to regulate the healthcare policy. The fact that the Obamacare uses millions of dollars to enforce is not looking well for our economy. Like the articles says its like a freeloading thing for all patients. the fact that they don't have to pay if they are in a different state and that original state has to pay for everything through taxes..that isn't fair to the public.
ReplyDeletemichelle period 3
The constitutionality of this law falls under the commerce act due to the interstate system but it also falls under the elastic clause which allows for them to do what is necessary to uphold the constitution. The Constitution says(in section 8 paragraph 1) that "The congress shall provide... for the general Welfare of the United States." If they congress feels that this would help increase the general welfare then they are well within their rights to do it.
ReplyDeleteObamacare is the key to the future of success of this nation. Nearly every other industrialized first world country has the same or a similar program countries such as Sweden have an extensive health care and welfare system which seems to be working out quite well for them and their population.
Regarding the money issue "Health policy experts and economists who have looked at this legislation have said we are pursuing every possible mechanism to reduce health care costs. The Congressional Budget Office found that health insurance reform will reduce the deficit by $210 billion in this decade and by more than $1 trillion over the following 10 years. And a family of four would save as much as $2,300 on their premiums in 2014 compared to what they would have paid without reform."(http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/myths-and-facts#healthcare-menu). So i feel that this is helping out the countries big debt problem.
Nilan Gunewardena period 2
I personally believe that Obamacare will just make the problems in our health care system worse, which are caused by excessive government regulation. Realistically, the plan does nothing for the common person because it just forces people to pay higher insurance premiums in the end. Why rob one person to pay for another?? Why is the government mandating health insurance policies for everyone? There are already multiple programs for health care for people who cannot afford, so I don't see why people who can afford insurance and who are somewhat struggling in this economy and trying save as much money as possible have to pay an additional amount for those who can't afford it.
ReplyDeleteDeshna Majmudar, Period 3
To answer your litany of questions...its cuz our government does not care about us or who we are, just what we have in the bank.
DeleteFernando Arellano
Period : Econ
Even if Obamacare is Constitutional, it is still going to cause major problems in the national government because the bad aspects-in my opinion- outweigh the potentially good aspects. Alot of people are struggling in this economy and if not having a family health healthcare plan helps ease the pain, the government should just accept that. Instead the government is mandating policies that force struggling families to pay for something they might not even want. Also, not having to pay health care bills if your not in your home state is just plain ridiculous-and the fact that other people in your home state might have to pay portions of your bill through taxes is just insane.
ReplyDeleteChelsea Straight Period 3
What i got from this article is that although not directly stated in the constitution, Obamacare is still constitutional, yet it seems to be a money problem as well, paying taxes for whatever reason the states may have.I see how it may be as if it were a freeloading law where one little cough or cold in another state gives that person a "get out of paying" pass. But i do see the benefit that middle and high classes will pay taxes to help the lower classes with payments. In this way i see that the economy is stabilizing and hopefully pull us out of a recession.
ReplyDeleteKim Hao per.2
Obamacare is evidently going to drive our economy in more of a recession. Most people today are barely getting by and obamacare is enforcing health care rationing. Obamacare takes lots of money in taxes which eventually falls onto businesses. Healthcare prices have skyrocketed. Technically, the "free money" Obama is supplying to us by with insurance companies are paid by somebody. Unfortunately, the payers are regular everyday workers. The United States is headed toward bankruptcy. Yes, it is Constitutional..but in the long run what's so constitutional about further drowning your economy.
ReplyDelete-Rimsha Younas P2
Personally, after reading this article I'm not in favor of the courts ruling, Obamacare sounds perfectly constitutional to me. The national government is in its right to regualte interstate affairs, and the article made it pretty clear that health insurance falls into this catagory. This is probably what impacted my decision most, "When uninsured Connecticut residents fall sick on holiday in California and get free emergency room services, California taxpayers, California hospitals and California insurance policyholders foot the bill." Why should other states deal with non-residents bills? Obamacare sounds like an adequate solution, and honestly its not like their forcing you to pay it... ya they would raise your taxes but it would be a lesser amount than healthcare itself and the money for these ER cases has to come from somewhere right.
ReplyDeleteFacundo Sirri
Period 2
I do not quite have an actual position on the matter of "Obamacare" because both of the conflicting sides make valid arguments. On one hand, Obamacare is helpful because it has the middle and upper classes pay more taxes so that the lower level citizens are able to get adequate treatment in case of any emergency. On the contrary, I feel that Obamacare is not necessary because money should not be taken away from people in order to benefit others and their financial needs. However, the argument presented in this article is that Obamacare is in fact constitutional because it is an interstate matter because it regulates a healthcare industry that includes a plethora of citizens from different states. Although it is stated as constitutional, Obamacare also "Regulates freeloading", therefore labeling the matter in a derogatory manner. Although the intent of the act is to help those who cannot help themselves, Obamacare might just create more problems than it can solve. Though a selfish point of view, people earn their money and are skeptical when they think of continuously giving it away so others can "freeload" off of their hard work.
ReplyDeleteSahil Dhaliwal period 3
No Sahil, the government will be stealing from others like Robin Hood the bank is gonna take your BMW and give it to someone who doesnt earn it...that sucks.
Delete<3 Fernando Arellano
-___________________-
Deletethanks, fernando. haha
go do your econ homework. you have a test tomorrow
-sahil
Although people might not like or agree with Obamacare, it seems to be perfectly constitutional considering all the preceding cases. Tax raises are always met with opposition, but it is perfectly constitutional and within the power of the Congress. The airforce, Nasa, and social security all runs on taxes, yet these institutions are not considered unconstitutional. If the majority of the citizens does not support Obamacare, then it would not pass. On the other hand if it is approved, that means that the majority approve of Obamacare, and therefore the minority has to follow it unless the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete~Nathan Shen
Period 3
I believe that Obamacare is constitutional, but in no way do I support it. Obamacare does not seem fair to me because people are required to pay higher insurance taxes that they will most likely not be on the receiving end of. In the state of our current economy, I would not want to pay for the health care of other people. Through Obamacare, the government is getting too involved with the health care system and I believe the hands-on approach will only make matters worse.
ReplyDelete-Karina Jonas
Period 3
“Obamacare” does not exceed Congress’ constitutional authority to regulate commerce because the author of the article acknowledges that “Obamacare” would occur at the interstate level. Regulating commerce at the interstate level is completely acceptable according to article 1, section 8, clause 3 in our constitution which says: “[The Congress shall have Power To]… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and within the Indian Tribes.” Amar asserts that if an America were to travel from their home state to another state and become in need of healthcare, they would be able to access it at the expense of the taxpayers in that state; the fact that the need for healthcare flows between states reveals where the true power is in regard to this issue. In my opinion, it seems to be clear that the regulation of commerce by congress is completely constitutional. People should spend less time trying to fight with the clarity of the constitution and pay more attention to the real consequences of “Obamacare”. The economic state of our country is terrible, “Obamacare” would only make the situation worse by raising taxes. One of the basic principles in economics if a country is in an economic slump is to lower taxes, then why is it a good idea to support something that cause taxes to increase?
ReplyDelete~Sarah Alaniz
Period 3
Thank you, beautiful and smart i dig it
DeleteFernando Arellano
For me, this actually shed a little more light on the "Obamacare" debate. I knew parts of it, but not all of it. For me, this article just proves that we have been given a lot of misinformation on whether or not Obamacare is a good or bad thing and whether or not it's constitutional. After reading this article, I must say, I agree with the author. The Federal government has every right to have control over healthcare, since it is an interstate commerce (the author even gave an example of this), so, after reading this, I see nothing unconstitutional about Obamacare.
ReplyDelete~ Kelsey Harper
Period 3
Don’t read this, it’s bad. It doesn’t even have sass like last time. (॓_॔)
ReplyDelete(º_º) Okay then. Well for starters I don’t really have an opinion either way, I believe that Obamacare whatsits is constitutional. Just because certain groups and parties don't think it'll solve any problems and will actually hurt us doesn't change the fact that it's within constitutional means, taxes are taxes. I don't think there were any malicious intents purposely put into the plan here and disguised as a movement to seize control and wipe out things like small businesses and all that, but a genuine plan to improve America. If this plan was as devastating as some make it out to be, then it would have been squashed from the get go. Look back in American History, methods of change and improvement always had to go through some sort of resistance and rigor to bring upon the desired end result. Yes the strain the Obamacare plan will put on us will be rough for the beginning, but nothing positive was just ever handed to America, there has and there will always be some sort of fight behind it.
You regret reading this now don’t you? I told y’all not to.
-Jack Morris Period 3
I believe that Obamacare will hurt our economy. Even if it does grant everyone health insurance, the money is coming from other people so essentially its hurting the people who can afford healthcare currently. Many people are struggling in the current economy, and this plan is just not the best path to take.
ReplyDelete-Yostina Halaka Period 3
When I read the article at first I did not understand much about what the heck "Obamacare" was however reading my peers comments deffinatly gave me an idea of what it entailed. I believe that the Obama's idea was headed in the right direction, as far as making it easier for the lower class to have access to healthcare, however it sounds eerily like a Socialist idea. The artical was adressing wheather or not "Obamacare" was constitutional or not, and it is under what we learned today in class about implied powers. I also agree with others that in a reccession it most likley isnt a fantastic idea to raise taxes on the upper and middle classes, or anybody. And of course there is a huge issue about it because people dont want to have to spend their hard earned money on someone elses health care. HOWEVER there is also the other side to issue, in that if you are someone who just lost their job and cant afford healthcare for your child or yourself should you be denied it? It can go both ways, for someone who is working as hard as they can in a low paying job and cant afford medicine or care I dont believe they should just be out of luck.
ReplyDelete-Elizabeth Judd
Period 3
I consider Obamacare to be constitutional because although it does deal with healthcare it is in a way an interstate commerce. Many institutions are not stated in the constitution yet they exist to help Congress and this seems like one of those that helps congress.Although raising taxes are part of an economy, many have to pay for benefits that they may not even get and at this time the economy isn't doing so well and it might have been a better plan to save for the future or until the economy got a bit better.
ReplyDeleteKatherine Barragan
Period: 3
According to the facts explained by Akhil Amar, I believe that Obama Care is indeed constitutional, but in all sense the process of attaining the goals of Obama Care would only push America further into debt due to the large sum of money used to fund the said program. In addition, these funds are mainly collected from tax payers which in turn would be used in a "free-loading" manner.This view mainly expresses the reflection of "pure-democratic actions" that would only worsen the situation at hand. I also agree with Sarah Alaniz in regards to the high possibility of raising taxes to fund the Obama Care program because in reality, America is not economically stable as some people believe it to be and each year the U.S. continues to deal with the economic debt that it still has not climbed completely out of since the Great Depression. Granted that the underlying goal of Obama Care is indeed a very considerate, compassionate notion, it still does not help the overall population within the U.S. and will only make it harder for laborers to make enough money to survive and help themselves.
ReplyDelete~ Bryan Quiambao
Period 3
As Chief Justice John Marshall claimed, the Constitution gives Congress "implied", as well as, "express powers". Constitutionally, Congress is not breaking any laws with "Obamacare", but it seems to me an improper reform. Being a California citizen, the "Obamacare" seems asinine. Why must Californians be taxed and the money transferred elsewhere--to out-of-state residents "sick on a holiday in California"? So, they get free emergency assistance from "our" taxes? That is not just. Obamacare is extrapolating a great deal of money from people through taxes and those who do not pay the taxes undergo vast consequences. From insurance to "uninsured of insurance tax", there is no way to dodge the bullet of "Obamacare". One question that should be asked is whether Obamacare is favoring our economy or not.
ReplyDeleteThe central issue in Obamacare is how much power the Constitution gives Congress. However, this idea was already addressed in the previous case of McCulloch v. Maryland. I want "Obamacare" to be unconstitutional so that it can be overturned, and hopefully, by doing so, it would benefit towards society; however, I know that it IS constitutional. I want to agree with the lower court's ruling, but I know that if I do, my favor would be apolitically correct. Nevertheless, politically speaking, the lower court's ruling is unconstitutional.
--Michelle Young
Period 2
I see many pros and cons in the Obamacare plan. Like Chelsea said, those who don't want the care are forced to pay for it, which may be hard in this struggling economy. On the other hand, it is an implied power that has been given to the president, so I believe he has the right to exercise that power as he pleases. He may have some unhappy people if this "Obamacare" plan is used, but in all honesty, any decision that the president makes can and will be criticized. If he feels like this is the right thing to do, then let him make that choice.
ReplyDeleteMarisa Sanchez
Period 3
Before reading the article i knew very little about what obamacare really did. Now eventhough this is supposed to help people get health care it is also going to cost many businesses who do not run on insurance. my father has a chiropracter business and he does not take most insurances because they do not pay him the right amount for the care that he gives his patients. therefore if my father had to take this health care it could potentially put him out of business. Then for the fact that the people of the state have to pay for the care of those who come in the state. eventhough it is highly unlikely it is possible for people to specifically go to another state and use thier hospitals just so they would not have to pay in thier state. how is that fair? when we take a look at the amount of times that congress has been stopped it is so small that you could possibly get the idea that Congress is starting to use this elastic clause of their's a little too much.
ReplyDeleteMelissa Hannan pd 3
My stance on Obamacare is more with the opposition. One can use Amendment 9 as a possible argument against Obamacare. It states "The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In vernacular, it means that rights not listed in the constitution are not necessarily denied. From this, the question is, does the national government have the right to force you to buy something that you do not want? It is true that in California you have to pay car insurance if you own a car, but if you really don't want to pay for insurance you can simply not buy a car. But avoiding health insurance is not that simple. Essentially, the government is forcing you to buy a product using the commerce clause as protection. Using this mindset, the government could force everyone to only buy american cars. Obamacare is an act against capitalism, which is against the protection of liberty. Obamacare is unconstitutional because it is a threat to the liberty of the American people.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Nasrallah
Period 2
I think the 10th Amendment might be more applicable: all powers not given to the national govt. or denied to the states are reserved for the states.
DeletePerhaps this is something that states should tackle, and not the nat'l govt.
After reading the article, "Constitutional showdown," I believe that Obamacare is constitutional but there are some aspects of it that I do not agree with. Obamacare leads people to pay no matter what the case is; people who do not need it are obliged to pay.. I feel that although Obamacare is constitutional, people should not have to pay for others, which will only just keep us in an Economic rut.
ReplyDeleteMariam Kamal
Period 2
I am against Obamacare because it forces people who may not have money to spend it on healthcare. I thought the government was trying to get its people out the recession we are currently in, not dig us in a deeper hole where we are forced to pay another tax. I understand where Marisa is coming from when she says that the president is only excercising his rightful power... but he should be focusing more on getting us out of the recession that, apparently, we aren't in anymore.. hmm.. doesn't feel like that to me.
ReplyDeleteYasmine Andrawis
Period 2
So I guess Obamacare is constitutional. Big whoop. It's based on a technicality and it takes a pretty broad view of the constitution to view it this way. Congress is supposed to only be able to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate. The author even goes so far as to say the latter is okay simply because it's included in the former. What makes that okay? Then he says it's not "improper" to require people to buy private product. Well then, if we can do it for healthcare, we can do it for anything. Why don't we make all Americans buy Ford trucks or something then? I mean, where does it end?
ReplyDeleteAlex Santrach
Period 2
I agree that there is something inherently undemocratic or unAmerican about forcing us to do anything. As Americans, we have a real aversion to the national government imposing its will upon our lives. But we're forced to do things all the time (albeit at the state level), so this shouldn't come as a huge shock to us.
DeleteWhile I do not support Obamacare, I fail to see how it is unconstitutional. I fail to see how taxing people who do not have a health care plan is unconstitutional due to the necessary and proper clause in the constitution. However, even though it is clearly constitutional, I do not support it because taxing people more in a recession is not wise because people are struggling as it is and it goes against basic economic principles.
ReplyDeleteZack Benson
Period 2
I, too, questioned the timing of this law. I think Obama wanted to take advantage of his Democratic majority. Plus, proponents argued that since it was long overdue and morally the right thing to do, you don't let a little recession stop you. I'm not so sure . . .
DeleteAs Amar points out, Obamacare clearly spans across the nation, so it is indubitably part of interstate commerce. And as we've learned the past few days in class, Congress is free to regulate all that falls within the spectrum of "interstate commerce."
ReplyDeleteAs my classmates have pointed out, just because this proposition is constitutional does not mean it is beneficial for our nation, especially with the "state" that it's in today. (Ha ha ha...) Many people are addressing the recession (Yasmine was just one that I saw) and I believe that Obamacare may stimulate economic growth. Last semester we learned about alleviating recessionary gaps and the ultimate goal was to increase aggregate demand. By contributing more to the market (of health care), we indirectly contribute to the making of health care equipment, the paychecks of doctors (who may not necessarily need it), nurses, insurance company employees, etc.
Many are also commenting on the possible domino effect of Obamacare. Alex Santrach above me says, "Why don't we make all Americans buy Ford trucks or something then? I mean, where does it end?" Really? Let's be honest here...it's not that serious. Call me a hardcore Chinese girl but I think Obamacare may be beneficial to our society and economy today. This supposed step towards communism is really not so. We all need to calm down.
You go girl! Way to drop some economics on us (Berwick would be proud!) And I haven't heard the word "indubitably" in quite some time. :)
DeleteMany of you have been commenting on the potential costs of healthcare reform. Millions of Americans don't have healthcare; some can't afford it, while others (mostly young, healthy lads!), choose not to pay for it. But if something catastrophic happens to them, we all end up paying for their care. This is what's driving up health care costs. The theory behind Obamacare is that if everyone is carrying insurance, then the health insurance providers would be able to lower their premiums (simple supply and demand).
ReplyDeleteBesides this, the law also allows you guys to stay on your parents' plan until 21, and it does not allow health insurance companies to deny somebody service due to preexisting conditions.
Regardless, the question remains: will this law survive judicial review? It's hard to say; precedent says yes, but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court will follow suit.
Now that I know what Obamacare is I can say it is constitutional. With the example the author gave it shows that it has interstate commerce. But when he mentioned people paying for other people and paying when not needing it I didn't like the idea. I see how the govt wants to help the lower class people with this but I don't really like it buts that's my opinion.
ReplyDeleteBraxton Matthews P.3
After reading this article I disagree with the court's appeal against "Obamacare" clearly Obama is within his rights under the constitution to have this country wide health plan. We have seen that in McCulloch Vs. Maryland case that congress has the power to regulate "commerce among the several states" I personally do not care for Obamacare but it is obvious that it is not unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete- Jaylin Stevenson
P.3
As far as the means to put Obamacare into effect, the efforts are completely constitutional, due to the implied powers of the Constitution. But while I, myself, do not support Obamacare, many Americans are beginning to confuse the word "constitutiality" to have a connotation stemming to complaints about what we feel is unjust, instead of the written laws of the constitution that governs us. Just because we don't necessarily like something doesn't it should be pegged as unconstitutional, which is partially why the article seemed to be written, pointing out the constitutional rights of Congress. So is Obamacare constitutional? Yes. Is it just, is it fair? I say no. But I will not attempt to call it unconstitutional. It MAY lead us straight down the drain pipe, but Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Canada tried it, and they're suffering. Obamacare is not worth the money or the effort.
ReplyDeleteHaley Shepherd
Period 2
Good point. Lots of things are constitutional, even if people don't like it (abortion, banning of state-mandated prayer in schools, the barring of the teaching of evolution in schools).
DeleteGo Haley!!!! YEEESSSS :D
DeleteFernando Arellano
Thanks haley I agree with this, just because it may be constitutional doesn't mean we will like it. But I would also say, just because something is constitutional, doesn't mean it's necessary or morally right.
DeleteLucas Richichi
Obamacare does fall under the category of interstate commerce, and therefore can be controlled by the national government. This is a perfectly constitutional decision, yet people are taking the word 'constitutional' to a different meaning. Like Haley Shepherd said, people believe that constitutionality should be based on whether a law is just or unjust, not whether it follows the constitution. From this understanding, people are going crazy and thinking that our constitution is defective for letting such unfair laws be passed. Obamacare is a terrible idea that would cause immense harm to our economy and to the people and it should definitely be rethought, but in its most basic aspects it is considered a constitutional law.
ReplyDelete- Madison Pickham, Period 3
It's funny, the advisers that helped make RomenyCare then went on to help make ObamaCare. Yet how is that working for everyone in Massachusetts? They are in a lot of debt, the care was poor, and many good doctors went elsewhere. Same will happen with Obamacare. Yet, the difference with Romneycare and ObamaCare, is that the people actually got to vote for it and they elected it while on the other hand ObamaCare was shoved down our throats whether we liked it or not.
ReplyDeleteAmerica has always prided itself on its capitalism, yet having one sole healthcare provider makes us more socialistic. What competition is there to make care better or cheaper when we have one option? None. Why would our amazing doctors want to stick around if they are going to make "56%" as much revenue as they are now making? They will go elsewhere to make a higher profit and we will be left with the mediocre. We are going to be left sitting in overcrowded ER rooms waiting to be treated like in Canada with this Obamacare. So do I find that we should be forced to buy into, or be taxed for, something we don't even want? No.
Lucas Richichi
Per 2
I couldn't say it better myself, i love you bro and share your beliefs seriously this statement= GOLDEN <3
DeleteFernando Arellano :D
Spread the love my friend. You nailed it. :)
DeleteMichael Tomey.
If it was truly "universal healthcare" as in Canada, then I would agree with you. But it's not. People can keep their own insurance. There is no government-run aspect to this law. It mandates individuals carry insurance, provides affordable options for those who can't, and provides incentives for smaller businesses to insure their employees.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I question the timing of this law more than anything else.
Obamacare has substantially created the opportunity to breed even more laziness in our already crumbling society. The last thing that people need to worry about in these harsh economic times is the fact that their hard earned money is going straight to people who do positively nothing to help progress our nation. However instead of resolving the issue by cutting off these handouts obamacare continues to reward those who simply do nothing and condones our society to socialist practices which in history has never turned out well. In turn New taxes, penalties, and fees resulting from the new law will decrease the amount of investment in the economy. This reduced investment will result in "a decline in productivity, causing the economy to produce $706 billion less worth of goods and services." Obamacare sounds like the "right thing" to do I mean come on healthcare for everyone? Even lower class? Sounds good....but in reality if this practice is takes action then Obama will simply be driving our country down a path of no return in which people rely on the government to do everything for them. The individual needs to take responsibility for their own actions mistakes and successes in order to improve as not only a human being, but as another reflection of the hardworking society our countries principals were founded on. Obama has created a plan that is Yes constitutional, however; just because it is within the restrictions of the constitution does that give any means necessary to enact it as a law? No, Understanding in great detail the severity this plan could have in a long run is something many people should consider in hopes we as a country do not settle on a quick fix but rather a long term investment for the progression of our country to take place for a better tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteKelsi Marie Holton
Period 3
WOOOOOAAAAAHHHHH <3 AMMMAAAZZING <3 I knew i loved you for a reason.
DeleteFernando Arellano and Michael Tomey
Wow it seems to me that reading my peers comments is more helpful than a textbook or the article itself. I believe the "Obamacare " is truly unjustified and it's easy for me to say cause I don't necessarily agree with Obama or the Democratic party. Why should someone from one state have to pay taxes on someone from another state? If people are going to work hard for their money their money should go towards something or someone from that state. Also, it would have to increase the middle and upper class's taxes because people without health insurance can't afford it. I understand that it is necessary to help the lower class but how much does Obama want to raise taxes on the people who actually have health insurance? Is it constitutional though? Hmm...I would have to agree unfortunately that it is. It is an interstate problem and should be dealt by the national government.
ReplyDeleteThat was Vanessa Rodriguez per 3
DeleteIf I haddddd to write it was me(:
Well I certainly think that Obamacare is constitutional but I certainly don't agree with it. I believe that the Florida judge was simply trying to protect his own interests and didn't take into consideration that his ruling affects more people than just himself. People with power should learn how to use it properly(sadly a subjective term). I don't agree with Obamacare because I don't like being told what to do,and making me pay taxes for something I most likely won't use until I have children, is telling me what to do. I understand that the reason for those taxes, like Mr.C said is to lower the premiums of others who do pay and other such things like that. But why should I have to pay for something I'm not going to use?Yes it is selfish but I'm not looking to keep everyone in this country healthy. Over population is one of the causes for the rapidly deteriorating environment. I am an avid believe in Darwin's survival of the fittest. Anyway, go ahead Congress and put this through,if it is what the people want and it protects their interests then what could possibly be the harm?
ReplyDelete-Jessica Benham period 2
*avid believer
ReplyDelete-Jessica B.
Dear Mr. C
ReplyDeleteOk so you know my stance on this whole obamacare thing...people are always gonna wanna be lazy human beings who never strive for anything more than a guaranteed government paycheck through the mail, seriously it sickens me that hard working people have to help the rest of these citizens who never wanna work to help themselves or their families, as Michael Tomey (Best friend) and Kelsi Holton (Other cute best friend) have stated, this Obamacare craze will incorporate heavy amounts of socialism into our country! NOT OK!!!!! Obama needs to seriously reconsider the idea of universal healthcare because unfortunately everyone does not deserve it. If i wanted to be spoon fed by ignorant incumbents like Obama id go to planned parenthood because even though i'm pro-life this government needs to be aborted. Im sorry but our parents, our Founding Fathers would frown upon their successor--the man who is completely negating capitalistic practices and substituting them with socialistic hypocrisy. Im gonna keep ranting...but on another blog i seriously miss you alot Mr. C and i love you with all my <3 OMG...Obama Must Go
Your running mate for 2032
Fernando Raul Arellano
Period. ECON
Furthermore, Go Lucas <3 I love you
DeleteStill Fernando Arellano
(¬_¬)
DeleteWho released the flying monkeys? <3
-Jack
I love Jack!
Delete-Sam
I Love Sam!
Delete-Fernando Arellano
I dont love Jack anymore -___-
Delete-Fernando Arellano
I love Fernando!
Delete-Michael Tomey
I Love Fernando :D
Delete- Kelsi Holton
and Michael!
Delete- Kelsi Holton
awww thanks guys!!!!! :D <333333
Delete- Fernando Arellano
#Obamamustgo
You never loved me Fernando, everything was a lie.
Delete(Ų ˰ Ų)
-Jack
Where do you get those faces from im really intrigued! :D i want them!!!!! hahahahah and nawww i love you to death indefinitely
Delete-Fernando Arellano <3
Faces? What ever do you mean?
Deleteˁ(˄.˄)ˀ
-Jack
I wholly agree with Haley's reply to the article. The healthcare business is undoubtedly an example of interstate commerce, therefore, Congress does have the power to regulate. This article does focus more on the fact of whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional, and I do agree with the article on Obamacare being constitutional. I understand why the Florida District Court attempted to reject Obamacare, but their argument of it being unconstitutional was flawed. They should have gone more with the argument of whether it is "necessary and proper."
ReplyDeleteCody Wallace
Period 3
I personally believe that Obamacare is constitutional because of the fact that Congress does have implied powers. It does also fall under interstate commerce so the national government is allowed to create something like that. However, I think the timing of Obamacare is one of the biggest problems along with it being unfair. People who are struggling shouldn't be forced to pay for healthcare. I do feel that my opinions on the matter are probably distorted due to the fact that I don't personally have to pay any taxes right now.
ReplyDelete- Destiny 2nd
I, too, did not really understand all of the fuss with healthcare before reading this article. As far as I understood, Obamacare would just protect people who couldn't afford to pay for their own insurance. Was I wrong. I do see how this can be perceived as congress dipping into states' rights, and I also see how this can be perceived as the national government taking too much control of the people - I believe the term used was "socialism." However, being upset that Connecticut residents will be safe in California if they become sick is covered by Obamacare. If they choose to avoid healthcare, they simply pay a tax instead. As this example is an example of health insurance crossing state lines, Congress does have the power to regulate it; it turns into a federal issue.
ReplyDeleteI will concede that in this tough economy, with a mounting debt and increasing financial pressures in the average citizen's home, now does not seem like the optimal time to enact a seemingly burdensome financial task. But I do believe that this is a federal issue, and that although states do deserve a voice in all matters concerning themselves, this is outside of their jurisdiction boundaries.
Sam Yassa Per. 3
<3 :D
Delete- Fernando Arellano
It is understood that the healthcare industry that Obamacare focuses on is interstate commerce because of its expansion across state lines. Since it is not likely that the components of healthcare can be centralized to a single state, the Congress is given the “implied power” to regulate it. Based on previous Supreme Court decisions, the Constitution does give the Congress the ability to impose the reforms associated with Obamacare for this very reason. If the matter at hand is whether or not Obamacare will successfully overcome the obstacle of judicial review, nothing should be taken into consideration except the theory of Obamacare and the Constitution itself. During judicial review, the Supreme Court’s job is simply to decide whether or not the reform is unconstitutional. Nowhere in this process are they to take into account the conflicting opinions that the American’s possess. The members of the Supreme Court were chosen because they are able to remain objective and consider the well-being of the American people when doing their duty. So, there is no reason to believe that the Supreme Court would suddenly change their views on interstate commerce and implied powers- after so many years- and declare Obamacare unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteBrianna Banks
Period 3
Another insightful response, Brianna!
DeleteThe issue with Obamacare seems to be more than just it's constitutionality. Obamacare is constitutional--it is interstate commerce, and congress does have the power to regulate it. Simply put, health insurance is interstate business; Obamacare is health insurance; interstate commerce can be regulated by congress; so therefore, Obamacare is constitutional. The more prevalent issue, however, is the moral correctness of Obamacare. On one hand it is an ill timed law which is "Europeanizing" America through socialist liberal reform. It is unamericam and counterproductive to capitalism. It is like earning an A in class but getting "taxed" down to a B so a classmate with an F can be bumped up to a D. Many Americans are xenophobic and this reform has caused a great uproar amongst this group. On the other hand, Obamacare is compassion. People are getting taxed to support the needy who cannot afford health care--a necessity in achieving the "American Dream" and having success. People donate to charities, why not support your fellow American? This is what Obamacare is making into law. The issue is not Obamacare's constitutionality (it is constitutional) but rather it's impact on the nations socio-economic state.
ReplyDeleteFernando Gomez
Delete10:06 pm
Per. 2
(Sorry Mr. C)
I like this statement a lot the whole grade analogy is sweet
DeleteFernando Arellano <3 :D
its you Fernando? Heck yeah i love it even more youre the best go NEAR ARBOR <3333 :D
DeleteFernandos... My boys. :) I like where this is going. You are the only two I would take a B for to help out my fellows failing. But with a post like this you are in no fear of failing. Love <3
ReplyDeleteMichael Tomey.
Thanks bro this is beast youre gonna love Mr C his wealth of knowledge will envelop your conservative senses like the open sea :D
DeleteFernando Arellano ^^^^^^^^
DeleteTotally made my day! :D
DeleteFernando Gomez
If people don't agree with a law, shall it be deemed unconstitutional? No. As much as people disagree with the idea of Obamacare, that doesn't make it any less constitutional. Personally, I do not approve of Obamacare and I believe it will send the economy in an even farther downward spiral, but none the less it is still constitutional.
ReplyDeleteMorgan Tenchavez
Period 3
WOW
Delete- Fernando Arellano & Michael Tomey
Wow
Delete-Fernando Arellano & Michael Tomey
Considering the fact that I never really believed in lower court ruling deciding whats constitutional, i still stand with this belief. Congress is well within their power with Obamacare. It is completely constitutional. I am not saying its right, and I am not saying i agree or disagree with it. But it is well within congress' power. I don't think that health care, along the peace corps and other things stated in that article should be handled by state government. I don't think by allowing the federal government to control these types of things is letting it have too much power. It should not be perceived as abuse of power, much less socialism. Obviously the states voice should be heard, but essentially, I think this is a decision to be made by congress. And i don't think that FLorida's lower courts ruling should matter, because i do believe it is implied, although not specifically stated, that the National government is allowed to make these types of decisions.
ReplyDeleteTamara P3
I feel as if this article focuses too much on whether Obamacare is constitutional or not. It is clearly constitutional as it is intrastate commerce. The real argument should be on whether or not the issue is necessary. Yes it is inconvenient with the state of the economy, but it also make sense to have available for the who need it.
ReplyDelete-Claire Freeman
Period 3
-___________-
Delete-Michael Tomey & Fernando ARellano
The ObamaCare policy is clearly constitutional. The example of someone from a certain state needing healthcare in a different state does provide evidence for interstate commerce. But do we need to policy? It's true that without Obamacare health costs will rise and the people will have to pay for others less fortunate. With the policy, people are forced to pay for health care themselves... and sometimes for others. Either way, money flows out of the people's wallets. They might as well purchase insurance for themselves if they have to pay anything. However the policy is designed to not raise the national debt at all. This magical money can only come from the upper class. Let the rich pay for healthcare for people who are perfectly capable of finding one of the copious health benefit plans for the less fortunate. Either way, some people are going to have to pay for other people whether they like it or not. Pick your poison.
ReplyDelete-Kasim Manekia
Period 2
I hate poison kasim, id spit it out whenever i have the chance like obama from office
ReplyDelete- Fernando Arellano <3 Muah te amo :)
On the question of whether or not Obamacare is constitutional, I believe that it is definitely constitutional. The author of the article, Akhil Reed Amar, made a really great point about healthcare being an industry. Not only an industry but an industry who's reach can definitely be felt nationwide.In the seemingly endless battle between national vs. state powers, national powers in terms of commerce definitely prevail. I agree with Zack and many of my other peers when they question the timing of Obamacare. Obamacare is inconsiderate to the middle class and the state of our current economy.
ReplyDeleteChristine Noche Per. 2
It is clear that Obamacare is constitutional but it doesn't seem like the right thing to do during this economy. Congress was in no way over stepping their boundaries. But taxing people more to support other people doesn't look like the right way to approach the whole issue of healthcare. I don't agree with the plan but there should be no dispute whether it is constitutional or not.
ReplyDelete-Thomas Tichy period 3
well first, i would say that this Obamacare issue would be constitutional. but unless i have been completely blinded by what the article was trying to say, i don't know how Obamacare could be all that bad, i mean after all as it stated in the article "Obamacare does not regulate pure inaction. It regulates freeloading." so this Obamacare is not trying to make things worse, but just say, more fair in a sense. If say this Connecticut resident really did get treated as stated for "free", then wouldn't this be helping us out, the people that are actually paying the taxes in California? After all, it seems that not many of us now a days have all that extra cash on hand to just be handing it out for everyone that comes from out of state. So yeah i see how Obamacare wouldn't completely horrible. Then again, if the national government becomes too involved, i see how that may lead to an issue as well. So i am not completely convinced for or against it, i would have to hear and learn more about the different issues that this Obamacare has to offer.
ReplyDeletePriscilla Mewborne
p.3
I do agree that ObamaCare is constitutional. Now whether it is particularly right for the US is the real issue. Socialist type medicine has been successful in other countries, but it is really going to significantly help our economic situation? Or will it just cause more anger towards the government during this recession? Personally, I don't believe it will benefit our country, but I also would need to do more research in order to form a more valid opinion.
ReplyDeleteTaylor Sullivan p2
The question at the heart of this debate is a dilemma that is a direct result of the fastidious wording of the Constitution. Is government mandated health-care included within the clause stating that congress retains the power to regulate interstate commerce? In my humble interpretation of the venerable document, President Obama's health care, known universally by the colloquialism "Obama-care," is constitutional. I derive my opinion from the fact that health care is primarily an issue of national concern; ergo, it falls under the category of "commerce." However, my support of obama-care ceases at this point. I believe that the economic consequences of obama-care could be disastrous. We would be drawing from monetary reserves that we do not possess, furthering our dependence on loans from countries who are our ideological antagonists. (For example, China)
ReplyDeleteSpencer Thompson
Period 2
i would say ObamaCare is constitutional. It is just trying to make things fair for everyone. This article to me, it besically talking about if states should decide for themselves or if Congress should just do it. I didn't really understand the main topic of the article though.
ReplyDeleteB. Henry p. 3
I feel as though this is a blog for current ap government students to reply to as it is our assignment. And I also feel as though people should not be judged baised on opinion
ReplyDeletelove you all;)
remaining anonymous
As much as I dislike Obamacare, I must accept its constitutionality. The elastic clause would imply that Obamacare is 'necessary and proper' to uphold the welfare of the people. However, I feel like this Obamacare is taking too much control over the lives of the people. I heard it mentioned in class today that California has control over part of our lives because they tell us we MUST have car insurance. This is true, but there is a way around it. Don't drive! There is no way around this health care regulation. Sure, the fine is of a lesser price, but money is money, and it is being spent on those who step up to take it. To agree with Michael Tomey (and I'm sure, several others), Obamacare is taking America closer to socialism.
ReplyDelete--Lauren Griffin, p. 2
I can see how "Obamacare" is constitutional...however I don't approve of it being passed. It seems like this too was another example of a good idea proposed by our government (in this case our president) but with too many negative repercussions and controversy..I agree with my fellow classmates..this act does bring a little socialism (it seems) to our country.
ReplyDeleteAlfred Pina
Per.3
I do think that Obamacare is constitutional, but I don't necessarily agree with it or think that it is right. I don't think Obamacare would really benefit the country, it may cause more pain to an already hurting economy; like the article said it's freeloading. I think the real question is whether or not Obamacare is right and necessary and not if it is constitutional, which it is.
ReplyDeleteHayley AW
Per. 3
After reading this article I would have to say that, from the information given and the way it is presented, that Obamacare is not in any way unconstitutional. After all, implied powers dictate that the Constitution can be interpreted in several different ways. That is not to say that it has become a burden to several American citizens who have to pay taxes in order to continue this "free" medical treatment. Overall, the conflict between those that oppose it and those that support it seems to be increasing with each passing day, so if there isn't some kind of compromise soon, this will end up being a bigger problem than it should be.
ReplyDeleteUrsula Garcia
P.2
Many questions arise when the idea of Obamacare arises. The question of weather it is constitutional or no and weather it is morally right. Constitutionally, Congress has every right to regulate Obamacare due to the fact that health care extends beyond the limits of any one single state leading it to be a part of interstate commerce. Technically Obamacare is morally correct due to the fact that it is designed to assist those who are not fortunate enough to be provided with healthcare at the expense of their fellow taxpayers. In theory, one cannot argue with the idea. Many would agree with the concept of helping their fellow citizens and others in need. The question that should be addressed is not Obamacare's constitutionality but its practicality. In an economy in which so many are struggling to financially keep afloat and stay out of debt it seems unfair to those struggling financially to have to pay an additional tax. The basic idea when it comes to helping others id to ensure that you yourself are stable financially and under control before you attempt to help any one else who is financially unstable. The issue with America today is that so many are financially unstable that it seems illogical that those are the people spending and losing money to help others who are in the same, if not worse, financial situation. On paper, Obamacare sounds like a great idea but the human aspect, coupled with the economy's state of uncertainty and instability, is what has caused such conflict.
ReplyDeleteRicardo Campos
DeletePer.3
From reading this article, it is clear that many people have opposing views on Obamacare. I agree it is constitutional. It is important to realize that people should have health care reforms; however, I think that this is the wrong time to discuss such an issue. As strongly as I believe that everyone has the right to have health care available within reach when needed, there are other, more important issues that we need to fix. I, for one, do not support Obamacare at this time because I do not believe it is essential in our lives right now & that it would only benefit certain social classes & not all. The tax that we pay right now should not fully go to pay someone's medical traumas, especially if they're only targeted to certain social classes.
ReplyDeleteKathy Hu
Period 2
I believe that Obamacare is in fact Constitutional. He is working with a program that falls under interstate commerce that of which the federal government is constitutionally able to regulate it. As it is not improper to require citizens to buy or obtain a private product, our Founding Father and first President even required that everyone buy some type of weaponry. There isn't any strong evidence, or any evidence at all for that matter, that states that the Constitution delegates otherwise. Therefore, I stay firm to the constitutionality of Obamacare.
ReplyDeleteAs many others have already stated, the Obamacare bill appears to be within the realms of constitutionality, even if justified only due to the necessary and proper clause and the implied powers of the national government. As we have seen through McCulloch v. Maryland, the supreme power lies with the nation, not the states, and 'interstate commerce' can be easily stretched to fit health care. Although I do not fully support this, I cannot honestly say that I find it 'unconstitutional'. As others have noted, it seems in this time and age that the controversy over the 'constitutionality' of something has come down to whether a person likes it or not, agrees with it, or simply, their version of injustice. However, we must remember that everyone has a unique set of morals or set beliefs, yet the Constitution itself is set in stone. Therefore, people have taken it upon themselves to interpret and stretch the implications of the Constitution in order to have it play in favor of their current beliefs. Obamacare may not have been morally just (as it was implemented in the height of a recession) or even beneficial at that time. Nevertheless, in the long run, with the increased contribution of funds into the health care industry and the economy as a whole, the stimulating effects of this may prove to be worthwhile and efficient. As I reiterate my opposition toward Obamacare, I do, however, fail to see the connection between the future consequences of this and communism, duly noted by some of my other classmates.
ReplyDeleteTiffany Hsu, P.2
Constitutionally, passing Obamacare isn't the problem, it meets the regulations required to pass this bill. In my opinion the bigger issue seems to be the financial hardship it might impose on those struggling in today's economy. Obamacare by all means was created to benefit the welfare of the people and would succeed in doing so, but under these tough times it only appears that the timing to ordain this bill is perhaps not the most practical, considering the poor economic state America is still under. It's quite the shame free health care doesn't exist in the states, but you can't have it all I guess.
ReplyDeletePattie Benavides, Per. 2
From my interpretation of this article and the decision of McCulloch vs. Maryland, I can only say that Obamacare is constitutional as it loosely falls in line with Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce and protect national security. Hence, if the republicans want to repeal Obamacare they must make the case that the law does not follow the will of the people. As whether or not the law should be enacted now, economically speaking, congressional committees have conjectured numerous conflicting estimates of its cost from adding $940 billion to the deficit over 10 years to reducing it by $120 billion in the same time period. However, I can agree with Mr. C that over a longer period (about 20-30 years)the trends of supply and demand will decrease the cost of medicare as a whole, so even if it has some ill effects for a little bit, it will ultimately prove profitable. Now to address the real concern, Fernando's hyper-capitalist perspective. The idea of pure capitalism in the American economy does not exist: the government plays an integral role in sustaining and maintaining the economy through fiscal policy; monopolies exist out of necessity (e.g. cable television); and the federal reserve regulates our banking system. What I am trying to convey is that a step towards socialism in this context is not wrong; rather it espouses an American ideal to integrate a variety of ideas and mix them together to make something new. In the end, universal healthcare is an American ideal of egalitarianism.
ReplyDeleteThis post was submitted by Jonathan Davidson P.2
DeleteSo the writer argues that Obamacare is constitutional. I don't see a flaw in his argument. I'd actually love to see an argument that it isn't, now after reading this. I do agree also that it doesn't have bad intentions. Who wouldn't want everyone to have health care? I actually feel bad for being so against it. At my political idealogical core I'm just such a hands-off, laissez faire government kind of girl. A step in the socialist direction is not what I want to see from my country. Forcing healthcare on us is too much, its over stepping a boundary of what our government can tell us to do.
ReplyDeleteIvana Bosch
Per 3
I don't think Obamacare is unconstitutional but I also don't support it. It's not that I'm against health care for everyone but it's just not the right time right now. What I'm trying to say is that I don't support it because to me, taxing people during an economic recession doesn't make any sense.
ReplyDeleteLinda Lee
Period 3
I still do not approve of Obamacare, somehow congress may fit it through, but whether or not this act is unconstitutional is hard to tell. This article obviously has a broad view of the constitution, and so in the authors eyes it is constitutional. In my opinion, Obamacare probably is unconstitutional, but even if it passes, people may see the flaws of its system and try to end it in the future. Forcing the people to pay for a service, which may end up more expensive than it already is, is wrong and should not pass whether or not it is within congress' power.
ReplyDeleteKendall Mayfield
Period 2
"Obamacare," as it is referred to by its opponents, is clearly not unconstitutional. The health care sector of our economy is estimated to amass to up 16% of our $14 trillion economy. The interconnectedness of health care in the United States clearly places it under Congress' authority to regulate it as "interstate commerce." The individual mandate is not more unconstitutional than popular environmental regulations or occupational safety rules enforced by federal agencies.
ReplyDeleteThe need for universal health care in America is great and I firmly believe it is the duty of the American federal government to provide social services such as health care to protect the "general welfare" of the public and keep the economic burden of the health care industry under control as it is a threat to the stability and sustainability of the national economy as a whole. All though I support a single-payer system, this health care system established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
Congress and President Obama did not overstep their boundaries and only conservative judicial activism is to blame for such ridiculous charges as to Congress' clearly enumerated powers in this field of the economy and American public life and policy.
Maliq Nixon
Period 3
Obamacare might not be unconstitutional, but i just dont see the benefit of a socialistic healthcare approach. I think the state of Florida is completely in the clear on this one. I think states do indeed deserve the right to appeal and overturn Obamacare. Maybe Florida is the wise one in realizing that socialistic healthcare is only the first step on a possible downward spiral for America as we know it today.
ReplyDeleteJoey Aliano
Period 2