Do you feel that the requirement to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional?

[Cali_Democrat]

Poll question: Do you feel that the requirement to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional?

[PDJane]

1. One must purchase auto insurance, no?

However, I fully believe that a single-payer insurance, run by the government is the way to go. Medicare for all?

[leftstreet]

2. Only because the Founding Fathers mandated we own cars n/t

[Still Blue in PDX]

3. Autos are optional, though. Bodies are not. nt

[LawnLover]

179. Give me a break

Some people have no choice but to drive, in order to get their jobs. Public transportation in some states isn't as great as it is in New York, etc.

I can easily say, hey, you don't have to get sick. You don't have to eat fried foods and sugary shit and never exercise a day in your life. You don't have to smoke yourself to death.

See how easy that is?

[msongs]

6. not if one chooses not to own a car or drive on public streets nt

[avogadro]

8. Auto insurance is required for a totally different reason..........

The auto insurance we are required to carry is liability insurance, to protect other drivers, passengers, and property.

[handmade34]

121. not to support the false claims, but

in direct response to your statement

-people getting sick, staying sick, etc... IS a liability for society in general...

[robinlynne]

127. obliging people to carry health insurance is "justified" by the same argument

exactly. If people do not get insurance we pay for their health care.

That is the supposed way it works.
in reality it hands taxpayer dollars to private corporations, again.

I am 100% OPPOSED to the mandate, for clarity. I support single payer health care.

[Liberty Belle]

20. That is different.

You only have to purchase auto insurance if you choose to drive a car. If you opt not to buy insurance or can't afford it, you can rely on public transportation or have others drive you. Some poor people or scofflaws will drive without insurance, though it's illegal, but many do so and don't get caught.

If you can't afford healthcare insurance, however, you don't have an option under this mandate. Sure, they look at income threshholds. But it doesn't take into account expenses. What if you're caring for an ailing parent or child, or you need a new roof, or your car transmission dies? There is no reasonable alternative for you under this bill except fork over even more money in fines.

Therefore I do believe it is unconstitutional.

The preferred alternative is universal healthcare for all, or at least a public option that people can purchase if they choose, with free healthcare for the poor.

[LawnLover]

180. And people don't have to follow the mandate if they choose not to

They pay a very small penalty. See how nice choices are?

[ixion]

21. A tired and debunked comparison

[RegieRocker]

122. Only in your mind

[ixion]

125. Well, no, in reality

which, I imagine, may be difficult for you to wrap your head around. ;)

[RegieRocker]

130. No I said it first about you.

[ixion]

159. whatever. Have some more Kool-Aid

:eyes:

[Motown_Johnny]

29. No you don't

This mandate is in place if you simply exist


Car insurance is needed if you own a car


If you don't drive, or are supplied a company car, THEN YOU DON'T NEED TO BUY CAR INSURANCE.

[Statistical]

30. You don't have to purchase auto insurance.

You must ONLY purchase liability insurance to protect OTHERS (no benefit to yourself) from your negligence IF and only IF
a) you wish to own a car (not a requirement)
b) you wish to use public roads (also not a requirement)
c) you don't wish to comply with other options (varies depending on state but posting bond is a viable option in many states)

Now compare that to the mandate that every human in the country must by a for profit product from the day they are born until the day they die.

[du_da]

33. Bad example

Auto insurance is only a requirement when using a shared publicly owned resource. Is limited only to coverage for damage that might be done to others who are using that shared resource at the time as well. Most importantly though, those with the resources can be excempt from this through a process similar to being bonded. As such it isn't an all inclusive requirement.

[City Lights]

39. No. nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

50. total FAIL... n/t

[RegieRocker]

54. You're right they are wrong!

They believe that everyone could go without a car which is total b.s.. Public transportation is either non existent or incapable to handle everyone. If it was there would not be rush hour traffic. This "you're not required to have a car" is total crap. The majority of people need cars to work, make money to buy food to sustain their bodies so they can be forced to buy insurance, both auto and health. This forced health insurance was to help insurance companies to force young people which normally have no claims to help pay the medical costs of insurance that make claims. Employment has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. The destruction of unions, the loss of jobs overseas and across the borders has created a employment atmosphere that either provides no or very crappy health insurance. The insurance companies now are facing the baby boomers who are needing more and more medical care and not enough premiums coming in to cover it. Sound familiar? This is what they have been saying about Social Security. The mandated health is only to help the private insurance companies not you. If you believe your rates will drop lol I have a bridge to sell you. What is needed is for us to insure ourselves, across the board for all types of insurances. Large corporations are already doing just that because of the greatly reduced cost. Why aren't we?

[du_da]

63. The problem is:

The argument you are referring to is an argument based on practicality however the issue is one of legality.


You mention the point being to force shared burden of the system. While certainly an desirable goal from the progressive perspective, being desirable and being within the legal limitations are two very different standards. This is something progressives have to learn to accept if we hope to address concerns. Progressives must stop assuming that the discussion starts with what is desirable. The discussion starts with what it legal and then moves toward desirable. Doing it the other way is why the general populace are reluctant to consider progressive viewpoints as much as we think they should because step one in the process from their perspective seems to be that we are saying the rules don't matter. Which I don't think is what is intended but the communication process requires the sender to ensure the message is formated based on the receiver's perception to ensure the desired message is received. As the ones presenting a message we control the structure of the message but the receiver of a communication defines the acceptable standard, if we don't define our structure based on that standard then we have failed in our job as communicators.

[RegieRocker]

67. Legal mumbo jumbo is only designed to confuse

and leave it open for interpretation. It is the root of the problem. It is the problem. Reality is the world I live in not the make believe world of words. Language is the tool of evil. Example: I refuse to pay the city to pick up my refuse.

[du_da]

74. How then do you gain the support

needed to further the cause. We must accept reality that we don't have the numbers to force anything down anyone's throat. Thus, by neccessity we must convince others to help further the agenda. You don't do that by talking past them instead of too them regardless of right you may be.

[zorahopkins]

124. I Resent Your Comment!

I resent the comment you made in your post!

The comment I resent is your comment that refuse to pay the city to pick up your refuse.

I resent that comment to several people.

And those people likely resent your comment to several other people.

[slackmaster]

72. The Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to force people to buy anything

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[backscatter712]

89. Yes it does.

Article I Section VIII

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

That's the General Welfare clause, and the Commerce Clause, and they gives Congress broad authority to regulate virtually all economic activity in the U.S. that might cross state lines. The health insurance industry and medical industry certainly has strong economic and commercial effects in the U.S., and certainly crosses state lines, therefore it can be regulated, and use of the insurance can be regulated, including the use of mandates.

Here's something else that's interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/health-care-ruling-shows_b_816629.html

The Founding Fathers literally passed laws requiring citizens to buy firearms, and imposed fines on anyone who did not own a firearm. Don't tell me that the Constitution does not give the authority to Congress to require citizens to buy stuff. It does.

[du_da]

103. That logic might work

if it were passed as a tax instead of structured as a fine. That of course assumes the initial hurdle of defining health insurance, which is not the same as health care, as interstate commerce. Something, I don't think would fly under the current courts. But for the sake of argument, assume it does. You still have the problem that it passed while structured as a fine. The problem with that is that applying a fine without a legal proceeding is questionable in and of itself. As such it would have to instead be structured as a tax which the politicians didn't want to do because they didn't want to have to justify that vote. That is what happens when the politicians start looking for political cover.

[robinlynne]

128. Look at that first sentence!!! It says we should have single payer health care!!!!!!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

136. Except this isn't for the general welfare of the US as a whole

It is to protect the financial viability of privately owned corporations in particular.

[slackmaster]

71. That's state law, not federal

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[mdmc]

75. why would you need auto insurance if you have no car?

:shrug:

[zipplewrath]

79. No

My sister hasn't bought auto insurance for years, better part of a decade really. Still drives too. no problem.

SHE DOESN'T OWN A CAR.

She rents when she needs one (city cars or some such thing. It's a neat co-op).

Now, try that with health care......

[Ikonoklast]

105. But the price of insurance is included in the co-op agreement.

Like health care bought under a group, you pay less, but still pay.

[zipplewrath]

106. You presume there is "insurance"

There is a concept known as "self insured", which the co-op could provide, assuming sufficient resources. The company I work for is "self insured", the payments come straight out of profits.

One of the many complaints about the mandatory requirement is that it doesn't recognize people who are in a position to be self insured in some sense (basically the truly independently wealthy. Even small business folks mostly want "catastrophic" insurance plans with high deductibles. They can pay "retail" for much of their regular health care needs). Most of the young population could easily consider a catastrophic plan, but will be prevented by this legislation.

[krabigirl]

90. Not for yourself. You have to in many states for liability reasons only, i think.

This is different because a car is like a moving weapon that can kill or maim others.

[thotzRthingz]

101. "One must purchase auto insurance..." Well, yes & no...

1. if you want to REGISTER and DRIVE a vehicle on public roadways, then individual STATES require the purchase of AUTO INSURANCE... however:

a. not so, for farm vehicles (for example)
b. no one forces you to buy a car
c. no one forces you to drive a car
d. some states (VA for example), you can OWN and REGISTER a vehicle and NOT have auto insurance (but you must pay a hefty fee to "register" same, and it is NOT "insured")

2. the Federal gov't mandating that everyone must have health insurance, is not the same as "auto insurance"

a. no one forces you to goto a doctor or hospital (I've personally not been to either since my mandatory "retirement physical" some 21 years ago... and I have no intention of ever seeing a doctor, or going to a hospital ever again)

b. mandating that anyone buy an essentially WORTHLESS HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY (because they simply can NOT afford the "best possible policy") is ridiculous... and, IMO it is also "unconstitutional"

c. mandating that I must purchase a product (any product) from any greed-mongering FOR-PROFIT company is also ridiculous

3. The above said:

If one chooses to view this "health insurance" issue, in the same light as "mandatory retirement programs" (i.e., Social Security, or Railroad / Government retirement programs)... then one should also DEMAND the establishment of a federally managed "Health Care for ALL" program. This would include DISSOLVING all "health insurance companies" ... providing for everyone to PAY into it (on a means tested basis) ... and requiring all U.S. based healthcare & pharmaceutical providers to ACCEPT payment-in-full (i.e., enough of this greed-mongering "supplemental" crap) from such a NATIONAL Health Care Program.

Such a "NATIONAL Health Care Program" would be held within the public trust, would not be subjected to "speculatory investments" which have nothing to do with "health care" and also would not be a "FOR PROFIT" venture.

[SharonAnn]

108. Not important what I/we think. It's important what the Supreme Court decides.

[JuniperLea]

116. Medicare is government mandated healthcare insurance...

I'm not sure why people don't get this.

[eridani]

137. Nothing wrong with paying taxes and getting public goods in return

Being forced to use mass murderers as intermediaries between you and your health care providers is an entirely different matter.

[area51]

183. +1 n/t

[grahamhgreen]

145. A tax is defferent than a mandate - that's why there are two different words. Look them up.

Also, Medicare guarantees coverage, private insurance guarantees they will do everything in their ability to never pay you a dime.

[WillowTree]

131. Auto insurance is mandated by the various states, not the federal government.

Different standards, criteria and limitations are granted to state governments by their constitutions than those that apply to the federal government as granted by the federal constitution.

And the states only require you to purchase automobile liability insurance if you own a car, and you're not required to purchase the car.

[Catherina]

4. As unconstitutional as mandating a homeless person to purchase a house

Oh wait, that was Candidate Obama in 2008 "If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house".

[thanks_imjustlurking]

129. Bingo. nt

[hlthe2b]

5. My qualm is that it is requiring one provide profit to

a private entity. From that respect, I'm not sure. While the analogy to car insurance seems fitting, the fact that one does not have to drive makes it imperfect. I agree with Weiner-- I think had there been a public option this would not have been so unclear.

[RKP5637]

10. I agree with what you've said. I also like Medicare for all. IMO it's ridiculous to have several

health approaches when Medicare is already setup and works extremely well. All of the work on health care IMO has been a waste of duplicated effort. A smart country would have gone for Medicare for all, worked the funding formula and it would have been over with and done.

[Art_from_Ark]

11. I don't think the analogy to automobile insurance is fitting

In the case of auto insurance, the states require only liability insurance, because every time you drive a car, you run the risk of causing damage to other people and property. Also, your premiums go down if you are a good driver.

In contrast, except in extreme cases, you do not run the risk of causing damage to other people and property because of your health. Also, your premiums go up as you age, regardless of how well you take care of yourself, and it's hard to know in many cases just what your insurance actually covers.

[hlthe2b]

13. As I said, I do not think auto insurance rquirement is comparable

at all, either. Others had advanced the analogy, so I thought I would address it.

[BzaDem]

7. What people don't realize is that if the mandate is unconstitutional, any future public option would

either go bankrupt immediately or be forced to charge thousands per month. The lack of mandate would affect a public option just as much as any private insurer.

[pampango]

48. There's no difference mandating premium payments to private or pubic insurers? n/t

[BzaDem]

109. Nope. Both are allowed, or both are not allowed.

Congress could enact Single Payer by imposing a tax. But if it has an option, under the rulings striking down the manadate, there could be no mandate to purchase health insurance -- even if there was a public option.

[du_da]

102. So then

start by changing the rules allowing for such a requirement from the federal. The problem in this discussion seems to be that from a purely academic discussion that things are being tackled in the wrong order. Also, question isn't so much should or shouldn't such authority exit within the bounds of the federal government but that it doesn't currently exist. At least that doesn't appear to be an argument among progressives assuming for the sake of argument we put aside single payer as the desired solution and instead focus on what the politicians believe to be politically achievable. Not saying we should do that, only that is how it breaks down if you focus on this argument.

[Johonny]

107. If it proved unconstitutional it would have large reaching effects

to almost every commerce regulatory power congress has and congressional power to tax. I think 1 or 2 Justices would go that far, but I don't think the whole court is ready to re-define those areas of the constitution.

[jannyk]

9. Yes, if it is to fund a for-profit org. No, if it is a payroll deduction for

universal, government run health care.

[sabrina 1]

12. Exactly!

[peace frog]

14. Right on

[Mimosa]

27. There it is! Jannyk you mailed it! n/t

[Mojeoux]

181. Exactly!!! Screw the Corrupt Insurance Industry!

Health Care is a right not a Privilege!!

[greymattermom]

15. If you don't have insurance

they can't force a hospital to take you. there will be a new industry at emergency rooms entrances where you put up a bond to get treatment because you'll owe the whole bill. For example, there will be title loans for broken ankle, and you'll put up your house for brain surgery. We will need to rebuild the charity hospitals like in the old days for most folks. Cities will need to raise taxes or fees to fund one charity hospital for the uninsured. That's what many of the General Hospitals were.

[TheKentuckian]

36. Clearly false considering just such requirement is in effect right now with no mandate.

[saras]

16. Health and car insurance

I don't think its about whether you have insurance or not, it's about compelling people to support some private, for-profit corporation when the law prevents alternatives from being provided.

[suston96]

17. What part of the constitution does it violate? nt

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Article "I don't like it"

[Johonny]

76. +1

:)

[Maru Kitteh]

98. and the "I should magically get it for free" clause.

[Gravel Democrat]

22. The Constitution enumerates powers..

those not enumerated are reserved to the states via the 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

If the Feds can/could do whatever they want/wanted to do why was the 18th Amendment (the prohibition of the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcohol-*NOT* consumption-) passed?

After all, it encompassed health, interstate commerce and popular sentiment.

The Constitution *is* a living document, but by design it's not easy to change. And *Every* American should be happy about that.

Do you want the (R)epublicans running around mandating that you buy stuff?

I don't think so

[BzaDem]

24. The necessary and proper clause is listed right along with the enumerated powers.

Banning pre-existing condition discrimination is undisputedly in Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. The mandate is necessary for such a ban to function.

The idea that the Constitution bans mandates is silly. Nothing in the Constitution bans a mandate.

[Statistical]

31. The mandate is one option it isn't the only option.

It would be like saying to regulate abortion the government forced all women onto birth control. "It is the only way to regulate it".

The mandate was a weak shortcut. It isn't going to stand up to Constitutional Scrutiny.

[BzaDem]

112. You are still wrong even if we accept your incorrect position that there are alternatives.

The standard for necessary and proper is extremely broad. It is certainly not "absolutely necessary." Once Congress articulates a constitutionally-permitted end (such as community rating/pre-existing conditions), the mandate only has to be rationally related to that end. That's it. There could be 10 other alternatives (even though there aren't), and it STILL wouldn't matter. The law would be upheld.

Unfortunately, people are jumping from the conclusion that they don't like the mandate to the mandate being unconstitutional. Even though the case law says the exact opposite. From McCulloch vs. Maryland in the early 1800s to United States vs. Comstock just last year, Congress can enact whatever means it wants so long as they are rationally related to any law passed under its enumerated powers (such as the pre-existing clause). Both anti-mandate district court opinions so far have sidestepped the issue (since it was quite inconvenient for their side). If the Supreme Court were to throw out the mandate, it would involve overruling 200 years of necessary-and-proper clause precedent.

[TheKentuckian]

41. The mandate is not required to ban pre-existing conditions at all.

The insurance cartel may find it desirable to their business model, we may like the rates better that way too but it isn't required to regulate, just to fix it the way you want it.

Why are you so desperate to set up a precedent that allows the Federal government to dictate every citizens purchase for profit products and services? This crap isn't contained in anyway, this is the path to slavery.

[BzaDem]

110. Actually, it is. As every healthcare economist acknowledges. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

114. mhmmm....meanwhile the regs could be written and enforced.

Would it create an incentive to not carry? Plausible.

Would it raise rates for those who keep coverage? Plausible.

None of that prevents the regulations or their enforcement on the industry. It is not the government's job to ensure profitability of carriers.

[BzaDem]

119. So? 200 years of case law says that the necessary and proper clause is far broader than you say.

The issue is not whether the mandate is absolutely necessary for the regulations to be written and enforced.

The issue is whether Congress could have found that the mandate is rationally related to the workability of the regulations. Basically, any means Congress chooses is OK as long as it there is evidence that it is rationally related (such as the basically unanimous consensus of all healthcare economists). There could be 10 alternatives or 100, and it doesn't matter.

There are 200 years of cases (since our nation's founding, right through the present) that give Congress complete discretion as to the means, starting with the seminal decision of McCulloch vs. Maryland and the establishment of a national bank. (Obviously, the establishment of a national bank would fail your test, since it isn't absolutely necessary for other regulations to be "written and enforced.")

[TheKentuckian]

150. The question was "Do you feel...", that indicates interpretation of individual responders

Lots of things have been interpreted broader and more narrowly than I do. My opinions are not a collection of polls and precedents but rather my direct interpretations and reasoning behind them.

Your mileage may vary. Yours appears to be so broad as to eliminate the possibility of a limited government that is granted power and authority from the citizens. You know you are interpreting too broadly because you negate the clearly spelled out intent of the framers in the entire design of the government.

[BzaDem]

158. It's not really mine -- it's the Supreme Court's New Deal precedents.

They can of course overrule them. I wouldn't want to be in a world where they did though, since most of the New Deal and post-New-Deal regulations of the economy rely specifically and solely on a broad, deferential interpretation of the necessary and proper clause that lets Congress figure out the means. I would be careful making the same arguments the libertarians do -- there might be some implications to them that you aren't considering.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. What about the profit factor? Other nations that mandate

insurance purchase also make it a crime to profit from services which are mandated. Many other nations do not allow pre-existing condition exclusions without mandating that citizens contribute to the profits of other private citizens. So it would be hard to argue that the profit is needed to end the discrimination. Even if 'a mandate' is needed, 'this mandate' is not the right one. The specific differences between this proposed mandate and the mandates in other nations need to be addressed, not just this constant repetition of the 'must have mandate' mantra.
And of course, candidate Obama said trying to solve our health care crisis by making everybody buy insurance was like trying to solve homelessness by mandating that everybody buy a house. And he was correct, and that argument won him votes. Now he is wrong.
It is interesting that the court struck down the one aspect that Obama argued against so strongly. Clinton was for mandates, and Obama made commercials about her taking money out of people's wallets and sent mailers heavily critical of the very idea of individual mandates.

[eridani]

138. Other nations that mandate private health insurance control those insurance companies directly

Like public utilities here have their rates set by public utility commissions.

[suston96]

51. The Constitution is a skeletal framework of government....

It has few details aside from the elections and terms of its officers and the functions of the three branches.

All powers of the three branches need not be expressed in the Constitution.

It does not say that if a power is not enumerated in the Constitution, Congress - or the other branches - cannot exercise it.

For example, it does not empower the US Supreme Court to interpret it or its amendments. But the court does so and has since the very beginning - 1803 Marbury v Madison.

And so on........

[du_da]

104. Actually

That is exactly what the 10th amendment says.


If this is not the desired structure then we need to talk about changing it.

[JuniperLea]

117. The Fed. Gov. already mandates purchase of health insurance...

We call it Medicare. I was never given the option to opt out.

[Unvanguard]

140. Prohibition was morals regulation. The individual mandate isn't.

Note, also, that the federal government has drug laws, and those have been upheld (see Gonzalez v. Raich.)

[treestar]

171. That is exactly what Republicans say

When they want to claim the Civil Rights laws are unconstitutional. That Congress commerce powers do not extend that far.

[kudzu22]

43. Tenth Amendment

Mandating economic activity has never been done under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. There is no precedent for such a law and thus it should not be considered constitutional on its face. If it is not overturned, it will set a dangerous precedent for future GOP congressional mandates. They could pass mandates that we buy a particular product as a payoff to their corporate contributors.

Unfortunately, the insurance mandate is central to the entire bill. If it is overturned, it's likely the entire law will be voided too. Once more, the DU was right -- should have been single payer or nothing.

[backscatter712]

49. I am not a lawyer, but I did just take a course in Constitutional Law.

And IMHO, the individual mandate is perfectly constitutional.

Cases to point out: Wickard v. Filburn (1942). This was a case where a an Ohio farmer, Filburn, was mandated by the government to comply with wheat allotments. He was told to only grow so many acres of wheat, but he decided to grow more, and got busted. Even though he was growing the wheat for his own use only, never sold it or had any intention to sell it, the Supreme Court ruled that the government had the power to impose allotments, citing what became known as the Cumulative Effects doctrine. What this means is that if everyone did what Filburn did, it would have cumulative effects upon the nation's economy, causing a drop in the price of wheat that the government considered undesirable, therefore, the government had the power to enact such regulation using the Commerce Clause in the Constitution.

Similarly, allowing people to opt out of buying health insurance would have cumulative effects upon the economy, which would do things like driving up health care and insurance costs, so therefore, the federal government can use its Commerce Clause power and mandate that people buy health insurance.

A more recent case, that had the input of some of the current bunch of strict constructionist asshole on the SCOTUS is U.S. v. Lopez. That case brought about a 3-part test, written by Rehnquist, which limited the use of the Commerce Clause somewhat, and stated that in order for the Commerce Clause to be used, the thing being regulated had to be a channel of commerce, an instrumentality of commerce, or an economic activity related to commerce. Insurance definitely counts as an economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce - insurance companies funnel around billions of dollars, paying for medical procedures, imposing rules and restrictions upon medical providers in order to receive compensation for services, affecting prices, etc. etc. etc. How can this not be interstate commerce?

[RegieRocker]

55. Thanks for reminding me that our government is involved in

price fixing along with telling a citizen what and how much food they can grow. Next seeds, roadside vegetable stands and home gardens.

[backscatter712]

62. The government's always been doing that.

And FDR did a HUGE amount of that in the New Deal - heavy regulation, price controls, quotas, the works. It gets even better in WWII - everything was rationed for the war!

Hell, even the Founding Fathers were doing things like that.

[RegieRocker]

81. So that makes it ok right?

[du_da]

70. Precedent doesn't out weight legality unfortunately

The current SC would never uphold that decision because Wickard v Filburn didn't have constitutional standing in the first place. It was a decision used to create a new standard to justify the actions being presented to restructure the system at the time instead of adhering to the old one. In a different time that argument works but is not one that would work today. Even as recent as 10 years ago that might have worked but that decision is the poster-boy for the type of judaical activism that society has turned against, much to the dismay of the progressive movement, and historically the social standard has been the be benchmark for extra-constitutional decisions.

If you want that standard of government authority to stand then you have to either repack the bench or rewrite the rules defining federal authority.

[backscatter712]

78. We're in a common law country. Precedent IS legality.

Granted, the conservative strict-constructionist douchebags on the court might overturn Wickard v. Filburn, but they'd also overturn Brown v. Board of Education if they felt they could make it stick. Doesn't make it right.

The constitution gave the federal government broad authority to regulate interstate commerce in the U.S. The individual mandate in the health care law is simply an exercise of that power. You can give me plenty of reasons explaining what it's a bad idea, or that it's a bad idea in the absence of a public option, and I'd agree with you since I think the health care law is lacking in cost-control measures. However, it's still legal.

[du_da]

80. Not exactly

Only in so far as the precedent can still stand based on legality. Common law allows precedent to cover areas in which there is no established legal conflict. Common law does not allow precedent to supersede coded law. We would have to be a purely common law system for that. We are a hybrid in which the codified law out weights precedent in the case of such conflict but common law exists to allow the legal system to account for uncodified issues.

Note you mention such an overturn doesn't "make it right" legality has little to do with what is right, again much to our dismay.

We cannot hope to fix the problems in the system if we don't understand the constucts system and work within those constructs.


edited to clarify, added the word little to second statement

[backscatter712]

88. So what makes the individual mandate illegal?

I gave two Supreme Court cases, citing the Commerce Clause, including the more recent U.S. v Lopez, saying that regulation of interstate commerce, including mandates, are legal. And these are cases that discuss the Tenth Amendment at length and conclude that the Tenth Amendment doesn't remove all authority of the federal government to regulate commerce. If an activity has an effect on interstate commerce, Congress can regulate it.

[du_da]

100. The primary conflict

with the commerce clause is the definition of interstate commerce, specifically that commerce that is intrastate is by definition not interstate. As you noted a previous SC decided gave way to the codified language for the sake of furthering the restructuring of the system at the time, thus setting a precedent that society held as valid for some time regardless of its conflict with the codified language. However, having a codified Constitution allows the current courts to ignore this decision if the original decision was not in line with the Constitution as it reads. Those arguing it is not legal would challenge the original decision on its legal merit and within our current system it is almost certain this argument would work. What we should be doing is looking to clarify the coded system to ensure the various branches and levels of government have the both the appropriate authority and desired limitations to enact the system of government we the people want in place.

[kudzu22]

155. An activity, yes

This is the first time they've tried to regulate an inactivity -- not buying health insurance. That's what makes it a groundbreaking case with far-reaching implications.

[Unvanguard]

141. Wickard is really a hard case to get around. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

147. Part 1, the farmer was not being forced to pay taxes to a private company with no guarantee of

service. His circumstance of being subsidized to not grow wheat has little to do with HC.

Part 2) the same could be said of virtually any goods or service, therefore the government could regulate that we buy hamburgers.

IMHO

[ChairmanAgnostic]

163. Did you drive to class?

If so, there you go.

[kudzu22]

154. In theory, the Tenth Amendment

which says that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states. The argument is that the ability to compel people to buy something (insurance) is not a power granted to the Feds in the constitution.

[Cronus Protagonist]

19. Free universal healthcare must be provided for by governmental sources

The entire western world agrees with, and has adopted the principal. Whether it is in the Constitution or not, it is a right that we, the people, deserve to expect from any system of government that is for the people, by the people.

Providing for the general well being of all people in our country should be, and indeed ought to be the primary duty of ANY elected government.

[du_da]

157. Just to clarify

Are you saying this is important enough that it should be implemented regardless of any limitations applied within the agreement among the we the people upon which our legal bond resides? Note, I am not asking if you think such limitations apply, only for clarity on your position if for the sake of arguement we assume this is not within the established legal limitations.

[Hamlette]

23. I'd like a poll that asks that question of those who are lawyers

and for those lawyers to explain on what basis they believe it is constitutional or not

[MilesColtrane]

25. The HCR law is constitutional because purchasing private insurance isn't a legal requirement.

You can choose not to buy a policy, you just won't get a tax break like the people who do.

[Statistical]

32. There is no tax break for purchasing insurance.

There is a penalty for not complying with the governments mandate.

Intent does matter.

For example would it be legal to say Abortion is legal but there is a punitive tax of $20,000 if you opt to take that option.

Then some freepers would say "It isn't punitive there just is a tax break for people who opt to not have abortions".

[MilesColtrane]

69. .

[MilesColtrane]

73. OK, it's a tax penalty.

Is that unconstitutional?

[Statistical]

86. Yes. If the purpose is punitive. There is significant taxing authority jurisprudence via case law.

Simplistically it boils down to intent. If the intent is to punish people then that isn't taxing. The government can still punish but it need to derive the authority to do so from somewhere other than taxing authority.

[BzaDem]

113. Actually, your tax power analysis is completely wrong.

Congress could SPECIFICALLY have a different intent, and it would still be completely valid.

From United States vs. Sanchez in the Supreme Court:

"It is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed... The principle applies even though the revenue obtained is obviously negligible... or the revenue purpose of the tax may be secondary... Nor does a tax statute necessarily fall because it touches on activities which Congress might not otherwise regulate. As was pointed out in Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U.S. 40, 47 (1934): ‘From the beginning of our government, the courts have sustained taxes although imposed with the collateral intent of effecting ulterior ends which, considered apart, were beyond the constitutional power of the lawmakers to realize by legislation directly addressed to their accomplishments.'"

I'm not sure how one could be much clearer than that.

[kudzu22]

156. Good example

If the mandate holds up, that's probably what they'll try if they get into power again.

[BzaDem]

168. That is not an analogous example. Abortion is a substantive due process right -- there is an

affirmative limit against laws prohibiting abortion (5th and 14th amendments). Congress would have article-1-authority to enact a 20k tax on abortion. But the law would be struck down under the 5th and 14th amendments for violating the substantive due process right.

When analyzing the constitutionality of a statute, step 1 is to see if Congress has the power to enact it in the first place, and step 2 is to see if it violates some affirmative limit in the Constitution (like free speech, abortion, etc). Your abortion tax would fail under step 2 -- not step 1.

The mandate, however, has nothing to do with step 2. There is no affirmative limit in the Constitution blocking the mandate. It only has to do with step 1. And it passes step 1 just like the abortion tax you speak of.

"Intent does matter."

That is simply not accurate according to Supreme Court case law. The pre-new-deal court did distinguish between normal taxes and taxes with a hidden regulatory purpose (i.e. intent), but the post-new-deal court overruled all those distinctions and specifically said intent does not matter, and that a tax is a tax even if it has a regulatory purpose (and even if it definitively deters the activity being regulated, and even if it raises negligible revenue, etc). Intent simply does not matter.

[beevul]

26. Yes, without a doubt.

Regulating commerce beteen the states is a power granted to the government by the constitution.

Requiring it, or even trying to "compel" it, is not a power granted to the government by the constitution.



Black and white, cut and dry.


Anyone thinking that government SHOULD have that power, isn't thinking long term.

[markpkessinger]

28. The question rests on a false premise

I've said this over and over again. Despite the unfortunate moniker of "individual mandate," under the new health care law, no one will actually be required to purchase health insurance. Those who do not will be subject to a fine (really a tax). That fine or tax is currently proposed to be $695/year. The purpose is not to assess a penalty for noncompliance, but to recover at least some of the costs such persons will, sooner or later, impose on the insurance system by virtue of the fact that those persons would buy insurance only when they were already sick. Compared to the $3,000-$4,000 per year a typical individual health insurance premium costs, it's a bargain. If anything, a case can be made that the proposed fine is much too small and will, in fact, provide incentive for people not to purchase.

[jtown1123]

40. How do they expect people living on the edge to come up with this fine?

I could care less about the "constitutionality" of this mandate but more so the practicality of it. If I can't afford to purchase health insurance at 300 bucks a month, there is no way in hell I can all of a sudden pay a fine at the end of the year. My problem with the mandate is the lack of affordable health plans. You cannot penalize someone for not buying something they can't afford...do they want me to put this fine on a credit card? Go into debt?

[phleshdef]

46. If you are living on the edge, then you likely qualify for exemption and/or subsidies.

[jtown1123]

52. What is the exemption?

[Bluenorthwest]

85. How do these exemptions and or subsides apply to families who

are denied equal protection under the law? What safeguards have been put in place to ensure fairness? Thanks in advance for the specific and detailed information I am sure you will be able to provide!

[phleshdef]

92. You know when you attempt to derail every single thread into a "gay marriage" issue...

...then it eventually gets to the point where you are using the issue in vein and not doing it any justice.

I'm just saying. I support full equal rights ASAP. But when someone is taking an issue, like you have been, and trying to make every thread about that issue, it doesn't matter what the issue is, it eventually gets very, very irritating and it makes people want to not even bother reading what you have to say.

[BobbyBoring]

87. I guess

The same way they expect us to come up with $1,200.00 a month for insurance. I don't know whether it's constitutional or not. Actually, the whole system is totally warped. We do live in a society where health insurance is pretty much required anyway. The first thing you're asked when you go to the Doc is what insurance you have.

My opinion overall is until we remove for profit insurance companies and lawyers from the health care system we're fucked.

[backscatter712]

93. The health care law does provide subsidies to people with low incomes to help them pay for insurance

And if you're close to or below the poverty line, you get Medicaid - it's been expanded.

[slipslidingaway]

133. Subsidies for insurance which is not necessarily care. n/t

[jtown1123]

165. Unemployed people don't get Medicaid.

[MattBaggins]

34. Would it be wrong for a hospital to willfully turn away

people who refuse to cover themselves with insurance?

I believe if cops respond to an accident and someone refused to provide insurance for themselves they should do nothing more than contact that persons next of kin to come pick them up.

the other option is to do away with the ability to declare bankruptcy if you refuse the insurance. You get in an accident you lose everything.

[TheKentuckian]

35. Damn, you take your defense of insurance cartel profits very seriously.

[supernova]

37. They don't do that now?

[elehhhhna]

38. please give some stats on Americans who can afford but "refuse" to buy health insurance...

or admit that this is a red herring very very uncommon scenario.

[kctim]

44. You don't buy votes with that kind of thinking

[raccoon]

42. No, but it's stupid. nt

[phleshdef]

45. There is no requirement to purchase health insurance.

[seabeyond]

47. you can "think" it is unconstitutional. but fact per constitution, it is NOT unconstitutional

the judges ruling are ruling thru conviction, not constitution

[WinkyDink]

58. An expert in both jurisprudence and the Constitution, are you?

[backscatter712]

64. See my post 49.

As I stated there, I'm not an expert, but I spent a semester in class listening to one, taking notes. There's plenty of Supreme Court case law that says that the individual mandate is constitutional.

[seabeyond]

91. informed. yes. nt

[rucky]

53. Probably

There hasn't really been an intelligent public debate about it that I've heard

[KansasVoter]

56. Wow, disappointed in this place

[jpak]

60. Yup!

:thumbsdown:

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. Absolutely and demonstrably not. You are required to buy disability and retirement insurance now.

The only difference is that you have to buy medical insurance from a private company.

It may be an important distinction, but that's not what you were asking.

[WinkyDink]

59. That is precisely and succinctly THE sticking-point which renders the proviso UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

TO MANDATE PAYMENT TO A FOR-PROFIT COMPANY.

And BTW: Paying taxes isn't "buying."

[backscatter712]

65. What part of the constitution?

Cite chapter and verse please? Keep in mind that I have a copy right in front of me.

And if you say Tenth Amendment, I've got case law in front of me to help me explain to you why you're wrong.

[grahamhgreen]

148. The constitution grants the right for congress to levy taxes, not to force people to buy goods

and services from their friends.

The constitution is being violated in that it has NOT granted the right for the government to do these things. All rights not granted to the government are held by the people.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. So all that's needed is a public option? Do you really think that would have mollified the judge?

The activist judge ignored precedent to strike this law down. His logic would have invalidated social security.

"mandated purchase" = "taxes"? You say potato...

Social Security is "Old age, survivors and disability insurance" and the IRS compels you to buy it.

I think that the public option was necessary, but I don't think the constitutionality of the bill hinges on that point, and it's clearly not the sticking point for the judge.

[phleshdef]

82. Bullshit. My tax money buys all kinds of stuff from PRIVATE companies and I had no say in the matter

How much government funded construction work utilizes private companies for labor OR equipment? ALL OF IT.

How many school text books are bought from private publishers? ALL OF THEM.

And don't even get me started on private companies and defense spending.

I could list a million items here.

But I don't really need to because the premise is false anyway. The law never mandates that you have to buy health insurance. The law mandates that those who don't carry some form of it, whether it be provided by the government or provided by a private company, who aren't poor enough for Medicaid or old enough for Medicare, will have to pay a surtax to ensure that their cost to society is covered if they end up being the recipient of emergency room care that they can't reliably pay for. If you don't want to buy healthcare, then don't. Pay the tax instead.

The nature of this mandate is morally and legally sound. If they had just raised income taxes a little to pay for "uninsured emergency room care" but then gave everyone who had any form of health insurance a tax credit that was the same amount of the tax (this cancelling the tax out), then they would have been doing the exact same thing conceptually and there would be less complaining about it.

[grahamhgreen]

149. Only if by paying the surtax you are guranteed healthcare.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[du_da]

95. Just because the opposition uses an argument

doesn't invalidate the argument. We don't get to pick and choose which portions of the Constitution we adhere too. Now if we want to do away with the 10th amendment and get rid of this whole states rights issue once and for all, then by all means let's put that idea to the public. There is a process for doing just that. I am not sure though that this is a route we really want to take, regardless of how appealing it may seem in the short term.

What you are seeing I think is that progressives are running afoul of the same issue that constitutionalists and libertarians have let define their views. Thus why opposing groups may seem to be in line when their goals differ. That being that you have to start with the agreed upon structure that is in place and work toward your goal we don't get to start at the goal, and the structure that is codified does not always make the golden path toward a goal a viable option. As such, sometimes you have to build new paths into the code that allow you to obtain the desired goal before getting to that goal.

[underpants]

77. No - 9th amendment, 10th amendment, Necessary and Proper clause, Commerce clause

[PBS Poll-435]

84. No more unconstitutional then SE Tax or FICA

:shrug:

[WinkyDink]

174. Profits.

[PBS Poll-435]

175. Medicare Advantage

Subcontracting to preferred providers and institutions.

This is really nothing new. Just expanded.

[Maru Kitteh]

96. NO, I do not.

[JHB]

97. The founders passed a mandate for sailors' medical care...

"In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind."

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

[Better Believe It]

99. It was like Medicare, not a private insurance company policy.

[cynatnite]

111. I'm torn on this actually...

I think everyone should have it. Period. Forcing them...I don't know.

A public option with this bill would probably negate the need to require it.

[JuniperLea]

115. No. It's been done for decades...

We call it Medicare.

[treestar]

118. How people "feel" about it is irrelevant

Cite case law and give rationales for the arguments - takes work, but that's where it will be decided in the end, not on people's feelings.

[Cali_Democrat]

120. Of course. n/t

[inna]

123. Interesting results. 71% feel it is unconstitutional.

[jtown1123]

167. I think it's more that 71% think it's bs. Who care if its constitutional. It's morally wrong

to force someone to buy a private product that they cannot afford then be penalized with a fine.

[inna]

170. Fully agreed. nt

[robinlynne]

126. I think the constitution has nothing to do with it. The constitution does not

address this scenario.

[eilen]

132. I'd like to qualify my "yes"

I think it is unconstitutional to require me to pay private companies for health insurance. Taxes to support single payer is different.

[ShadowLiberal]

134. You're going against multiple founding fathers if you think it's unconstitutional

There's precedent for a healthcare mandate, some of the very founding fathers who wrote the constitution passed a health care mandate for sailors early in our democracy. The law was that sailors must either buy health insurance or pay a tax (that was to be used for their health insurance I believe).

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/21/937716/-Was-John-Adams-health-care-mandate-unconstitutional

As for who else was in a prominent position when President John Adams signed the bill.

-Thomas Jefferson was the President of the Senate
-Jonathan Dayton, the youngest man to sign the United States Constitution, was the Speaker of the House

[slipslidingaway]

135. The President Adams Payroll Tax: Nothing Like an Individual Mandate

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/01/21/the-president-adams-payroll-tax-nothing-like-an-individual-mandate/#comments

"The incredible degree to which many “liberal” writers have gone all-out to defend the previously conservative idea of an individual mandate requiring people to give a private corporation their money is bizarre. That latest attempt seems to be a dishonest interpretation of a 1798 law that created a payroll tax to pay for federal socialized medicine...

...The fact the founders supported the completely uncontroversial idea that the government could levy taxes on individuals and use those funds to provide government services–such as health care–in absolutely no way indicates, one way or another, their support for using government power to require people to buy an expensive product from a private corporation. Just because this law deals with health care is immaterial. This tax no more indicates support for the individual mandate than anyone of the other hundreds of laws that “mandated” individuals pay a tax to the government..."

[Unvanguard]

139. It's quite plainly not.

Just because lots of people really dislike it doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

[coti]

144. Quite plainly, eh?

Based on what precedent? Nothing even comparable to this has EVER been done by the federal government.

Given that, how could it "quite plainly" be constitutional?

By the way, just because this was signed into law by a Democratic President does not make it constitutional.

Think past politics.

[Unvanguard]

146. Wickard v. Filburn is pretty directly on point.

Actually, if anything, the law here is more plainly constitutional than the one at issue in Wickard. :shrug:

Again, the fact that people don't like it does not make it unconstitutional. Nor, for the matter, does the fact that Congress does not usually mandate purchase. There is no constitutional prohibition against novel regulations--which is a good thing for anyone who supports universal health care, which is also pretty novel in the US...

[coti]

151. That's not even CLOSE. Not even close to all fours.

Not only does that case represent the far tip of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, it still gives no basis whatsoever for imposing a mandate on every single person living in the United States (at least those who have been deemed to be able to afford it) to PURCHASE- key word PURCHASE...!!!- a product costing many thousands of dollars per year.

I know what you're saying with the rationale of the case, but you're still not even close.

[Unvanguard]

152. That's not how you interpret Supreme Court precedents.

The rationale of Wickard applies squarely to the individual mandate case: the decision not to purchase health insurance obviously has a cumulative effect on interstate commerce. The fact that a literal purchase mandate wasn't at issue there is quite irrelevant. Seriously, tell me how to reconcile Wickard's rationale with the logic of a decision striking down the individual mandate. I know the laws aren't identical, but that's not good enough.

To make matters worse for those constitutionally challenging the mandate, the mandate, unlike the law at issue in Wickard, is not an attempt to simply lower insurance prices, but rather an important part of ensuring that Congress's regulations of the health insurance industry actually function correctly. To argue that it is unconstitutional is to argue, effectively, that Congress can't regulate the health insurance industry as it sees fit--which is directly contrary to the whole point of the Commerce Clause considered in light of the Necessary and Proper Cluase, at least in its modern incarnation (which rightly recognizes modern economic realities).

Modern federalism decisions have tended to resist the notion that Congress has a general "police power", i.e. that it can regulate non-economic activities that through some tenuous string of inferences might have an impact on the national economy. They don't touch the principle that Congress can regulate the national economy and directly economic decisions that impact it, and that are intertwined with Congress's regulatory schemes. There is simply no basis for arguing that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

[coti]

153. "The fact that a literal purchase mandate wasn't at issue there is quite irrelevant."

No, that's entirely relevant. Forcing those who don't have health insurance to buy it is the most relevant aspect of the issue, in fact.

Actually, it's so relevant that Congress passed a law forcing those who haven't purchased insurance to do so. It's the whole damned thing.


With your argument, you're trying to bring nearly every single American who has made the financial choice not to buy health insurance- every American who has chosen NOT to engage in commerce in the area being regulated- under the umbrella of the Commerce Clause, portraying them as being engaged in interstate commerce, by comparing them to a farmer who WAS directly involved in the agricultural good being regulated in the Wickard case.

That Congress regulated wheat. Filburn was growing wheat, though (purportedly) not selling it. It was a stretch for the court- and they knew it that was the edge of the jurisprudence they were creating- but he was involved in the wheat business and they decided he was subject to those regulations too (i.e., in addition to all of the other farmers, those who were selling wheat, who were already subject to the regulation).

They did NOT take someone who previously had NOTHING TO DO WITH WHEAT and FORCE THEM TO BUY WHEAT because they decided to impose some weak regulations on wheat and the person's lack of previous wholesale wheat purchases was not doing the economy well.

THAT would be the analogous situation to be used as comparable precedent under the Commerce Clause.

Your case gives basis for mandating no PURCHASES, CERTAINLY not by nearly every single American. Nor is it applicable to people who are not engaged in any business with health insurance companies and pay for whatever healthcare they receive out of their pocket.

[Unvanguard]

164. You haven't responded to a single thing in my post.

You don't explain how the cumulative effect of decisions not to purchase health insurance don't affect interstate commerce (probably because they obviously do.) You don't explain how to get around the fact that the individual mandate is quite clearly related to securing the proper functioning of the regulatory framework Congress legitimately created.

The closest you come is your point that Filburn was involved in the wheat market, while Americans who don't buy health insurance aren't involved in the health insurance market. But this is a misleading comparison. Americans who don't buy health insurance are involved in the health care market just as Filburn was involved in the wheat market. The choice to pay out-of-pocket instead of purchasing health insurance is perfectly analogous to the choice to grow one's own wheat instead of buying it on the market. In both cases, the logic is the same: withdrawing from participation has just as much an effect on the market for a product as participating does, and Congress is as such able to regulate it.

You can say as much as you want about how much Wickard was extreme, etc., but it was a unanimous decision that even the recent conservative, pro-states' rights Supreme Court hasn't overturned or even suggested overturning. The US now has a national economy, not fifty state economies. Congress has the power to regulate that economy as a whole. This isn't even really at issue in the individual mandate cases: people object to the individual mandate not on federalism grounds--they don't say, "States should force me to buy insurance from insurance companies, not the federal government"--but on libertarian grounds. The Commerce Clause has nothing to do with libertarianism, however. There is no reason to think that it applies to inactivity any differently from activity, or to mandates any differently from other kinds of regulation. It is about federalism--and technological changes have erased much (though not all) of the distinction it, and the scheme surrounding it, sought to make.

[hansberrym]

172. Could Congress penalize Filburn for not selling to the AAA board

the wheat that he decided not to grow? Seriously? If Filburn decided not to grow wheat, does the precedent in Wickard lead you to believe the Congress could compel him to grow wheat?

If we eat, must we grow wheat?

Have we come to the point where the court will announce that the average man has no rights that the Congressman is bound to respect?

[Unvanguard]

176. I'm not sure there's a Commerce Clause problem with compelled growing of wheat.

There is probably a Due Process problem, though; choice of occupation has been respected for a pretty long time as a fundamental liberty right.

Remember, the constitutional argument against the individual mandate isn't that no government has that power, it's that the federal government doesn't. It has nothing to do with individual rights; it has to do with the division of power between federal and state governments. This is plainly at odds with the actual reason people are queasy about the mandate--which is part of why the constitutional argument is so silly.

[LawnLover]

142. We have a lot of mandates. Get over it.

nt

[Skittles]

161. um

tell me what other mandate could eat up most of a person's income

[LawnLover]

177. Oh, please

Most of your income? That's complete bullshit. But even if, for the sake of argument, we say it's true -- the penalty for refusing to follow the mandate is something like two percent. Two percent. Nobody's going to go broke because of this thing.

[Gravel Democrat]

166. nope

I've heard that before...

"GET OVER IT"


ROFL

In fact, sometimes some things (or words) make me resolve to do more...

Much more.

So, thanks for that.

Many people would be amazed if they knew how few people know that they are going to have to file an "acceptable proof of insurance" with their 2014 tax return. The latest (just last night)- was the person that cuts my hair. Now you would think that of all people, someone who talks to 10 or 15 people for 1/2 an hour 5 or 6 days a week would have heard that she will have to spend $300 or more every month in a few years to buy "insurance" unless her company provides it for her. But she had no idea. Nada. Zip. She said she couldn't really afford to use what she has now.

But, I'm happy to spread the facts! :D

Oh, and you should have seen the look on her face when I dutifully informed her (thanks again) that if she didn't file proof of insurance with her 1040, the IRS would want to know why, and she would have to pay a penalty, that doesn't count towards any insurance at all.

She was all OMFG!

I'm not going to "get over it" ever. This is a fascist assault.

[LawnLover]

178. Oh, come on. The penalty is practically a joke

That's amounts to almost nothing. Quit trying to scare that poor woman. You do more harm than good.

[grahamhgreen]

143. That should read "from a private for-profit corporation". Yes, it's like letting Corp's levy taxes.

[Skittles]

160. without a Public Option - YES

[Lorien]

162. Would it be unconstitutional if Bush had proposed it? nt

[Unvanguard]

169. No. It wouldn't be unconstitutional if Satan proposed it.

It is not unconstitutional.

[WinkyDink]

173. So far, jurisprudence begs to differ.

[LawnLover]

182. All Those Crying Foul, Read This:

"The individual mandate is a requirement that all individuals who can afford health-care insurance purchase some minimally comprehensive policy. For the purposes of the law, "individuals who can afford health-care insurance" is defined as people for whom the minimum policy will not cost more than 8 percent of their monthly income, and who make more than the poverty line. So if coverage would cost more than 8 percent of your monthly income, or you're making very little, you're not on the hook to buy insurance (and, because of other provisions in the law, you're getting subsidies that make insurance virtually costless anyway). "

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_does_the_individual_mandat.html

Someone up above said that the mandate would take most of your income. That's obviously complete bullshit. Educate yourself.

[Gravel Democrat]

184. RE: "you're getting subsidies that make insurance virtually costless anyway"

question:

How are these "subsidies" allocated?

It was my understanding that these would be in the form of tax credits but I am unclear on this specific item.

TIA

Oh, and from your reply above, I wasn't trying to scare anyone, the facts do that.

"I just tell the truth and they think it's hell"-- Harry Truman



http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdqGnz6UqG
Don't miss this!

Candidate Obama speaking from Duncanville TX
...appeared on The Ellen DeGeneres Show. In the interview, Obama made the following distinction between his health care proposal and Hillary Clinton’s:

“Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans…. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it.

So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.”

—Senator Barack Obama, February 28, 2008, on The Ellen DeGeneres Show

[inna]

187. "subsidies that make insurance virtually costless"

complete and utter bullshit, for the absolute majority of the population.

[old mark]

185. No....nt

[inna]

186. Do you feel it's fair? Just curious.

[old mark]

189. Yes. We are all REQUIRED to "contribute" to social security and to pay taxes

to support the work of the government...I don't see much difference in that the insurance program would ultimately be for the common good, but I would much prefer the complete elimination of private insurance carriers and a single payer system, like most civilized nations manage to provide for their citizens.

mark

[grahamhgreen]

188. The ayes have it, unconstitutional it is!!! My question is

How did a poll with those results only wind up with 29 recs????

[demgurl]

190. Not as much unconstitutional as much as stupid!

If someone can not afford health insurance you can not make them afford it by passing a law. That, to me, is as stupid as passing a law that people must have money so we do away with poverty.

If other countries can provide health care for their people, I am not sure why 'the best country in the world' can not understand how to do it. Let's pass a law, instead, that makes it illegal for the government not to provide health insurance.