Has anyone been paying attention to the lawsuit against Obama's health legislation? I only know the basics, which is that the plaintiffs argue that the individual mandate portion of the bill is unconstitutional because the government can't require people to buy something that they don't want to buy. The government says it can because it has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

What do you think about the issue? And do you think the law will be struck down?

IIRC, the plaintiffs have lost every step of the way, and have just kept appealing their defeats. While the Roberts court is certifiably insane, we do already have a precedent of forcing people to buy auto insurance, and Massachusetts's law never seemed to be in danger of being struck down.

The difference here is that it's the Federal government, rather than a state. States have police powers, while the Federal government (at least technically) does not. Over the last century, Congress has begun wielding Interstate Commerce like a police power, and has been largely successful at it. The Roberts Court is going to have to fight a longstanding tide of precedent if they want to overturn this law.

Does the health care bill really involve the use of police powers, though? I was under the impression that the only thing that happens to you if you don't buy health insurance is that you are charged a higher rate on your tax return. Nobody's going to get arrested or charged or even fined through the court system for it, are they? Feel free to correct me.

OK, the Supreme Court has started hearing oral arguments about the health bill.

Can somebody explain to me how the individual mandate differs from a garden variety tax penalty or tax break? Congress obviously has the ability to grant tax breaks or penalties for whatever economic activity is so chooses to reward. If Congress can give you a tax break for buying a house, why can't it give you a tax penalty for not buying health insurance? Nobody is going to be arrested or charged through the criminal justice system for not having insurance.

A Democrat signed it.

Then why the hell aren't the Obama administration's lawyers using that argument in court?

From what I've read, it looks like they are.

(Edited to remove inapplicable argument)

Not that it will matter, because the Roberts Court is as political and corrupt as the rest of Government.

From what I've read, the administration's lawyers seem to be doing all sorts of cartwheels justifying why the insurance market ought to be regulated (it's nationwide, large, and ubiquitous), as well as why it is legitimate to mandate that people buy something (on policy grounds, due to risk pooling). All of that is faff. All they have to say is that the "mandate" is basically a tax. End of story.

But they can't say that because from the beginning we have been assured that the mandate is not a tax.

Stupid semantics. Could they have avoided all of these lawsuits from the beginning if only they had framed it as a tax hike?

If they had set it up that way then, I believe, they couldn't have even taken it to court on that portion.

Now for me, I like the idea of the Medical Savings Accounts, but they need to make it so that your money doesn't just disappear after a year. That is the only reason I don't use it. If they had it set up so that the money I use to pay for my medical insurance went into an account of my own that was specifically for my family's medical needs and did not expire, that would be awesome. Especially if my wife were able to put money into the exact same account. Tax free and no time limit.

... disappear? What MSA proposal has money disappearing? Where would it go?