My own conclusion is that legislation that compounds and perpetuates the current employer-based insurance system is the wrong way to go. So I am not in favor of a government-imposed requirement to purchase health insurance. In today's WSJ Opinion Journal, David Rivkin and Lee Casey argue that purchase mandates are unconstitutional. Economically speaking, there isn't much difference between taxing away a large chunk of a person's income then giving back a "benefit" that the person may or may not want and simply requiring the person to spend their money in a certain way. But distinctions can be made legally. If a Constitutional challenge to purchase mandates were raised, at least the side benefit may be to focus attention on the liberty-eroding effect of high tax rates and mandatory government "insurance" programs such as social security and Medicare.
Posted by Carter Mackley at September 18, 2009 10:58 AM | Email ThisMillions, both legal and illegal, will tell the government to get bent.
I will refuse this government edict, and I will cheerfully go to jail before I pay a nickle in this bullshit fine.
Oddly, in jail, they provide free medical care.
So, they might as well lock my ass up now, because unlike the leftist swine infesting us here, I will stand by my principles.
I can see it now... charged in court with a federal felony "failure to buy health insurance" rap.
So, here's my message to that empty-suited, anti-American racist bigot who just sold out the Poles and Czechs:
Bring
It
On.
And people wonder why we're pissed.
But, if it is a "right", then why have a mandate to require you to purchase coverage? If it is a "right", then why would the government fine you for not exercising that right?
If it is a "right", then replace any other right into this bill and see if the bill makes any sense at all.
You MUST exercise your right of free speech and if you don't, you'll be fined by the government until you do.
You MUST exercise your right to vote and if you don't, you'll be fined by the government until you do.
You MUST exercise your right to keep and bear arms and if you don't, you'll be fined by the government until you do.
And how many of the rights you currently have should be subject to the heavy governemnt regualtion as proposed by these bills?
IMHO then, healthcare isn't a right, it is government intrusion into our other rights - those of freedom of speech, association, religious beliefs and self incrimination.
When the governemnt can set rules and regulations for coverage - to exercise our "right" of healthcare - and punish us if we don't follow those rules, then it isn't a right protected by government. If we choose to consume transfats at our one trip to a restaurant per month, will we be fined? Will we be limited to 12ozs per week of carbonated drink? Will we be denied healthcare if we gained weight since our last doctor's visit? What rules and regulations will the government insist we follow in order for them to grant us coverage for our "right"?
Reforms are needed, but the reforms should include as little governmental control and "partnership" as possible. These "plans" and bills are the wrong solution.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 18, 2009 12:45 PMI imagine that the Supreme Court, in assessing the constitutionality of such a mandate, would consider the practical difference between a mandate and a tax (I think there is one, but it's small) and whether the mandate satisfies a legitimate public purpose (which I think it does, though some would disagree).
Posted by: Bruce on September 18, 2009 01:17 PMCongress has no power to do this.
Individual rights are not to be suspended to satisfy an imagined "legitimate public purpose".
Buy your own insurance if you want.
All three branches are equally responsible for upholding the Constitution. The Executive and Legislative branches have decided to do whatever they feel like and leave it up to some poor (or rich) schlup to manage to get a lawsuit all the way through to the Supreme Court, because, until they do, whatever those two branches do is by default, constitutional - oaths and sacred honor notwithstanding. Even when it does get to the Supreme Court, they may decide incorrectly (they're only human) and the way it is set up, no one can override them, thoug they cna override everyone else. Not really sure this is what Jay and Madison had in mind.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 18, 2009 01:50 PMIs wholly unproven. The constitution does not provide limits on how taxes are determined or which industries they favor. Those limits do not exist and the lack of them does not conflict with due process or anything else.
Certainly some tax credits favor green industries, do they not? The difference between a credit and a penalty is a mere technicality. Raise the base tax, create a new insurance credit -- boom, you've just escaped all "constitutional questions." But that is exactly why these questions don't exist. It is foolish to be convinced otherwise.
A mandate is not only easily constitutional -- and this debate is simply a sideshow -- it is good policy. Why? Well, let's how much the mandate costs: $980 a year for an individual. How much does the average uninsured individual raise our premiums? $1,100 on average, according to the Center on American Progress. Those are nearly the same numbers. Simply put, we shouldn't be subsidizing irresponsibility.
Posted by: John Jensen on September 18, 2009 02:47 PMAmericans will not stand for this.
But you know what, polls aren't everything. Universal coverage is good policy. The vast, vast majority of people who will be affected by the mandate will not just have health insurance after this law takes effect, they'll also receive subsidies to lower the cost of insurance since most of them make less than $30k a year. That doesn't sound like a bad deal for them.
90% of voters either have insurance through work or through Medicare. They aren't going to be affected by a mandate, except through lower premiums. It's hardly political suicide.
Getting universal coverage isn't just good politics, and it isn't just good policy, it is morally right. A mandate is literally the only way besides single-payer to achieve universal coverage.
Posted by: John Jensen on September 18, 2009 03:18 PM(I hope enough people here know me by now)
Posted by: Gary on September 18, 2009 03:19 PMAnyway, like I said, please don't let me stand in the way of the Mandate Express.
What does amnesty have to do with anything? Why don't you lay off on Mexicans for a few days?
Posted by: John Jensen on September 18, 2009 03:36 PMObama brought it up. Like, yesterday. Said we need to make the illegals legal, so they can get covered. You been watching the news? I'm not slamming Mexicans. Doesn't Mexico have universal health care?
And yes, I know he went back on his campaign promise about mandates. I'm fully aware.
Posted by: Gary on September 18, 2009 03:39 PMDon't we have that already? Geico gets a check from me every six months. I have to pay that in order to be able to simple things like shop for food.
Posted by: Vince on September 18, 2009 07:08 PMWhat is the constitutional basis for mandating participation in social security?
What is the constitutional basis for mandating that you educate your children? What specific clause of the state or federal constitution allows this mandate which fall on all parents?
What is the constitutional basis for mandating that you feed, and not turn into the street, your 4 year old child? That you pay alimony?
That you can marry these people, and not those people, and you can't marry more than one at the same time?
What is the constitutional basis for requiring service in the armed services, or in a militia? Is there a clause giving the federal government power to draft? (I suspect on this one, there is, but am not sure.)
What is the consitutional basis for L and I insurance premiums? for legislation that denies workers the right to sue for negligence against their employer?
The notion that health insurance mandates out of all these things suddenly raise some constitutional issue has the difficulty that all these other things are constitutional.
Indeed, what's the constitutional basis for the State licensing doctors in the first place, that's quite an intrusion on a free market in which witch doctors should be allowed to compete, my god, milton friedman would tell you the invisible hand will handle this, why do we have government butting its nose in, it totally takes away my freedom to sell my health provider services.
Posted by: Torture Lawyer on September 18, 2009 07:15 PMBut, of course, you knew that.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 18, 2009 08:23 PMWhat is the constitutional basis for mandating you have proof of your identity? If you want aliens without legal status here to be denied things, you have to enforce that and the only way is some kind of id.
There is no Constitutional basis for mandating proof of ID; you do not have to carry proof of who you are. But Congress can make a condition of receiving a benefit proof of ID. The police or Government agents cannot demand "your papers, please" on the street, but they can say "you have to have this paperwork to receive that benefit".
What is the constitutional basis for mandating participation in social security?
There isn't one, and it should be abolished. It's a shell game and it's in the process of crashing VERY hard.
What is the constitutional basis for mandating that you educate your children? What specific clause of the state or federal constitution allows this mandate which fall on all parents?
There isn't one. Nor is there a Constitutional basis to provide public education.
What is the constitutional basis for mandating that you feed, and not turn into the street, your 4 year old child? That you pay alimony?
There isn't one. But there is a legal basis in law (if you were a lawyer you would understand that). Responsibilities must be honored (like children), and that includes your debts (like alimony).
That you can marry these people, and not those people, and you can't marry more than one at the same time?
There isn't one, so it's left to the States to decide (remember, what isn't enumerated to the Federal Government is left to the States or the people). You get a STATE marriage license, not a Federal license.
What is the constitutional basis for requiring service in the armed services, or in a militia?
Article 1, section 8 - to provide for the common defense, the powers to create an army, navy, and militia.
What is the consitutional basis for L and I insurance premiums?
There isn't one; any Federal involvement in the L&I system is unconstitutional. It's a power reserved to the States or the people.
for legislation that denies workers the right to sue for negligence against their employer?
Don't know of such legislation, but in terms of setting up Courts for resolution of contracts it would be under Federal jurisdiction (if appealed beyond a State level).
For a supposed lawyer, I'm shocked you'd ask these questions. They are all pretty basic, and the answers are easy. And you would also realize that it is, in fact, unconstitutional to provide a mandate to buy insurance.
Indeed, what's the constitutional basis for the State licensing doctors in the first place,
Powers not expressly granted to the Federal Government are reserved the States, or the people. You really should know that, if you were an actual lawyer, or had even read the Constitution...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 18, 2009 09:17 PMTo HINTON, if such a mandate were to pass I would gladly volunteer to be a test case. Lets take this one to the Supreme Court.
" How much does the average uninsured individual raise our premiums? $1,100 on average, according to the Center on American Progress." John Jensen
I take offense to the assertion that by not buying a service I have no need for that I am adding to someone expense. This free-riding argument doesn't fly with me. I don't have a single outstanding unpaid medical bill. I suggest we go to a self-pay system, you pay for the medicine you use.
I would argue that anyone who is being treated in a hospital and doesn't pay 100% of the medical bills or expects someone else to subsidize it, he or she is free-riding. Except that is not entirely accurate because they have the freedom to contract and, if they choose to, can buy as much or as little health insurance coverage they want.
Posted by: libertyORdeath on September 25, 2009 07:36 AM