I don’t understand arguments over the new healthcare law. I understand the debate, one sign likes it and the other doesn’t. What I don’t understand is the argument that it is an extension of government power.
I have read that the healthcare law is flawed because for the first time it mandates that individuals purchase something - in this case health insurance.
I can’t understand this argument. It seems to me that the Government mandates that I purchase things all the time. I am required to file federal income taxes. To do that I must purchase the means-at least I have to come up with pen (trivial example I know). If I am a male turning 18 I have to purchase the means to communicate with the draft board (stamp, car, phone-something). My point is that the Government mandates that I do things, and doing something costs money, all the time.
Can someone explain this argument?
I know that the real problem here is that people don’t like the Gov’t telling them what to do. But it is hardly unconstitutional.
I think this is probably destined for Great Debates, but I don’t think your examples of things the government requires you to purchase are really along the same lines and of the same magnitude as the health insurance mandate.
Requiring you to take certain actions to comply with the basic accounting and bureaucracy of government isn’t the same sort of thing as requiring you to buy a particular (fairly expensive) product. Even if the most obvious way to comply does involve buying some things.
I’m not sure it’s unconstitutional either, but I do think the trend is kind of worrisome. If the government can make you buy health insurance, what else can it make you buy? Would it be constitutional for them to require each person to buy a bushel of corn each year as an agricultural subsidy? Would it be constitutional to require the purchase of an American made car every 5 years?
I tend to think that the commerce clause is overstretched as it is, so I’m not particularly happy to see it further abused.