Only if it’s life threatening. If it’s not, they can send you away, or just treat the symptom. For instance, if you have an asthma attack, and go to the hospital, you’ll get a puff of an inhaler, but not necessarily a prescription for an inhaler. They just tell you to see a doctor.
Of course you can’t afford it, so your back in the ER in a few days and the cycle continues.
That’s neither here nor there, so don’t feel so bad about breaking it to me. Now, if one race were required to get insurance but not another, then maybe your comment would have some meaning. Civil rights legislation, regardless of what it is based on, has nothing to do with the individual mandate.
That’s ridiculous. The company highlighted was actively engaged in commerce but chose not to deal with certain people. That is quite different from not engaging in commerce at all.
First, the point isn’t what you think, but what the federal judiciary thinks, and this judge didn’t think it was ridiculous.
Second, you’re vastly overstating your case. You point to a possible way to distinguish the private accommodation regulations: that the business owners choose to run a business and so therefore you can make them engage in certain transactions against their will. But in order to get there you’re forced to admit that the Commerce Clause can be used to force economic activity, and you’re now just attempting to limit it to people who do something voluntarily in order to be subject to that burden. That makes the argument far less persuasive, as you can no longer claim that regulation of inactivity is unprecedented.
Not engaging in commerce at all? If you make enough income to come under the mandate, I submit that you are already engaged in commerce (selling your labor to an employer, and using that money to buy things). If you chose not to work at all, to be a bum on the street, you will suffer no penalty for doing so. Those who are low enough income, or who have religious objections are not subject to the penalty.
Just like a restaurant owner: He’s not forced to open a restauraunt. But if he chooses to open a restaurant in addition to serving people of the race he prefers, he has to serve people of other races as well. If you are engaged in the commercial transactions of having a job or running a business and thus making income, some of your transactions are expected to pay for health insurance. It seems like a valid comparison to me.
First, the company in question was engaged in commerce but chose not to serve a particular race. That falls under civil rights and the reason the Feds had any say was due to interstate commerce. The company could very well choose not to do business with anybody and would be well within their rights. They just cannot choose to exclude a particular race.
Second, you are thinking in the wrong direction. In the case cited a company involved in commerce was not allowed to discriminate. Contrast that with an individual who chooses not to do business with a company for whatever reason…it happens every day. The federal government cannot compel me to engage in commerce with any company or fine me for not engaging in commerce. Mr Smashy said it best when he said that the government cannot force you to purchase a car from any car company.
There is no comparison. By not engaging in commerce I meant that an individual chooses not to purchase an insurance policy. The restaurant owner in your example is actively engaging in commerce but does not want to serve a particular race. As I stated in the last post, the owner can choose not to do business with anyone and go out of business if he really doesn’t want to serve a particular race.
It works both ways. There are things Congress CANNOT do, they cannot establish a religion or do any of the things the constitutions says it cannot do. There are also some things Congress can do and two of the things it can do is impose taxes on income and pass laws under the commerce clause.
Actually, the 10th amendment says exactly “Congress can only do X, Y, & Z.” as you put it. The rest of the Bill of rights was about “Congress can’t do A, B, & C.”
Since you are a liberal clearly in favor of this law, let me ask you a question:
Would you think it constitutional if Congress passed a law requiring every citizen in the country to be forced to open a restaurant? Could they mandate that commerce under the now stretched-thin-as-taffy authority to ‘regulate’ interstate commerce?
Or, to use my earlier example, which I notice nobody has commented on (due to a lack of a good argument?)…
is it constitutional to Congress to require everyone to buy a car, on the theory that it’s good for the economy? If not, why not?
My point is, the arguments laid out in a decision by a liberal judge are (coincidently I’m sure!) align with the administration’s arguments. I wouldn’t put much stock in them.
That’s slightly more defensible than just rejecting his opinion based on who appointed him. But it’s still problematic.
First, district court judges often do not reflect the ideology of their presidential appointment. Other factors, like the Senators from that state, often predominate. It is not at all safe to assume that a Clinton-appointee is a liberal. This judge was a prosecutor before being a judge and was appointed in 1997, suggesting he was a safe moderate choice.
Second, the civil rights argument isn’t one of the administration’s talking points. I read a lot of political coverage, and the only place I’ve ever seen it come up is on legal blogs.
And third, even if this were a biased judge parroting talking points, it still brings the analogy out of the realm of frivolousness. It may yet be wrong, but I’ll bet you the argument gets serious consideration by the Supreme Court if this ever makes it there. My original point was simply that rejecting the poster’s analogy out of hand is to not understand that it will play a role in every judicial opinion on this topic that reaches the merits.
A thoughtful response, Rich, but I don’t use the word parrot lightly. Here’s Cato’s take on the matter:
Obviously Cato isn’t crazy for Obamacare given their libertarian nature, but that doesn’t make them wrong (except maybe on a liberal-dominated message board…)
Judge Steeh’s decision was limited to inactivity in health care decisions. His argument, like it or not, was that the decision not to buy health insurance is simply a decision to try to pay for your inevitable health care needs out of pocket. That might be a slippery slope to government-mandated pre-purchase of funeral plots if you plan to bury yourself, but it doesn’t exactly follow that the Government can therefore regulate any decision not to buy a product.
That would be involuntary servitude (against the 13th amendment). But as I’ve pointed out before, nobody is truly forced to buy health insurance.
If you don’t want to buy health insurance, you have three options:
Earn less than the minimum income to fall under the requirements.
Voice a religious objection.
Pay a nominal fee (a maximum of 2.5% of total income).
You are free to dislike this law as much as you like, but it’s constitutional. The proper remedy is through the ballot box, not through seeking a judicially activist court to strike it down.
No offense, but you’ve made no case that it’s constitutional. I get your thing about involuntary servitude, so let’s go back to my original question (which NOBODY has addressed, due to the inconvenient imposition to the pro-Obamacare crowd).
Would it be constitutional for Congress to mandate car purchases by all Americans? Why or why not?