tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7990876628413018080.post233734922564875319..comments2023-06-27T03:48:28.039-05:00Comments on of mule dung and ash: A little something for everyoneMule Breathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05586696064321854554noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7990876628413018080.post-36784498294049315102012-04-20T19:03:46.641-05:002012-04-20T19:03:46.641-05:00Good post and good points, thanks!Good post and good points, thanks!Old NFOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16404197287935017147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7990876628413018080.post-11320058720853082372012-04-18T21:32:10.556-05:002012-04-18T21:32:10.556-05:00On your second comment, Elhauge did not ignore the...On your second comment, Elhauge did not ignore the commerce involvement and actually mentioned that as Congress' reasoning for the mandate. He further mentioned that the individual mandate of hospitalization insurance had only tenuous connection to commerce, and that the mandate that able bodied men buy (or obtain) firearms had none.<br /><br />Beside the point. Elhauge's argument is Mule Breathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05586696064321854554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7990876628413018080.post-92009962975566206192012-04-16T21:37:12.155-05:002012-04-16T21:37:12.155-05:00Further, Prof Elhauge's argument ignores that ...Further, Prof Elhauge's argument ignores that the commercial fishing operations at whom this law was directed were ALREADY engaged in a particular commerce activity. That is, the law is one that dictates HOW commerce is to be conducted. <br /><br />It made no stipulation that a citizen be REQUIRED to engage in that commerce, then be subjected to the regulation at hand. <br /><br />See the Jeff Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04373451882997653147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7990876628413018080.post-18581156597665168392012-04-16T21:34:20.345-05:002012-04-16T21:34:20.345-05:00Actually, no: Shipowners were required to pay a su...Actually, no: Shipowners were required to pay a sum of money -- which they could deduct from a sailors pay -- to fund healthcare for disabled or injured sailors. However, no sailor would be fined if they didn't have proof of insurance. In other words, there was no individual mandate. A mandate that a risky business provide for the healthcare of their employees, should those employees get Jeff Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04373451882997653147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7990876628413018080.post-80530046988393840292012-04-16T17:44:25.229-05:002012-04-16T17:44:25.229-05:00Seems to me, Jeff, that an insurance policy would ...Seems to me, Jeff, that an insurance policy would have been a contract in the 1700's just as it is now. <br /><br />The article is discussing the Founder's intent, not semantics, and the Founder's obviously had no objection to passing laws requiring employers and individuals alike to enter into a contract with an insurance company.Mule Breathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05586696064321854554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7990876628413018080.post-69138005802295962322012-04-16T16:07:54.512-05:002012-04-16T16:07:54.512-05:00A health insurance policy is a contract, JEG. Wou...A health insurance policy is a contract, JEG. Would you agree on this? <br /><br />If the government is forcing me to purchase health insurance (or risk a large financial penalty), they're forcing me into a contract. Would you agree on this? <br /><br />Now, if you'd be so kind as to point out the legal rights of Congress to force me into a legally binding contract, against my will, Jeff Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04373451882997653147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7990876628413018080.post-73513200847684902772012-04-16T13:32:01.416-05:002012-04-16T13:32:01.416-05:00Good post, MB.
Jeff B: I didn't know "man...Good post, MB.<br />Jeff B: I didn't know "mandate" and "contract" meant the same thing.JEG43https://www.blogger.com/profile/15805856537622109764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7990876628413018080.post-75517629993303301372012-04-16T13:06:53.572-05:002012-04-16T13:06:53.572-05:00"Our Constitution does not prohibit either th..."Our Constitution does not prohibit either the employer or the individual mandates contained within the ACA."<br /><br />Nor does it permit Congress to force people to sign a contract. Which is different. <br /><br />That's the argument, Mule Breath... "Does Congress have the authority to force the citizens to sign into a legally binding contract, which Congress then gets toJeff Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04373451882997653147noreply@blogger.com