I thought about putting this in IMHO, but considering the subject matter, I thought it might be best to post this in GD.
So, if national health insurance mandate were struck down by a federal court, would Massachusetts’ health insurance mandate be struck down too? If not, would a court striking down the national health insurance mandate give Massachusetts insurance mandate opponents ammo for a court case of their own?
No, the challenge to the mandate is on the rather narrow grounds that Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not give Congress the power to compel someone to take an action (purchase insurance). There is no question that state legislatures do have that power.
Unquestionably? Does this mean that there’s already been a court ruling on that?
We are all legally obligated to buy car insurance if we have a car.
Granted one can choose to not own a car so not buy that insurance.
Thing is, all of us being human and mortal, is mandating buying health insurance really different?
Generally if a case is appealed the lower court’s ruling is held in abeyance till it is resolved.
IANAL and I am sure there are lots of caveats to that but in general I think cases need to run their full course before the courts will mandate a wholesale change in the law.
It gets more complicated too. Different Federal courts may come to different decisions (happens). I think cases such as these become prime candidates for the Supreme Court which is the final arbiter.
How about flood inusrance. The feds mandate people in flood zones buy that, don’t they?
One difference, as far as the courts are concerned is that a person chooses to live in a flood zone. If you don’t want to pay the flood insurance, move out of the flood zone. But somebody can’t take any action to avoid the health insurance mandate; everyone has to buy health insurance.
I know that sometimes a court case can affect a certain district, and not others, but I figured that since the federal law affects all Americans, then one court striking it down would invalidate it for everyone.
I think so. If the feds wanted to add a tax to income I’d be fine with that, but to force people to busy something that, if they want out of they’d have to commit suicide, I don’t like it.
I think the penalty is paying a fine, not to be confused with forced suicide.
Once in a while you get two lawas that are virtually the same in two districts. One district strikes it down and one district upholds it. Then it goes to the Supreme Court to resolve.
And normally this is what happens.
But it has happened that the Supreme Court refuses to hear the cases, this results in the odd situation that you have two different rulings. It’s not common but is has happened.
Where did I say forced? The standard comparison to the health-insurance mandate is auto insurance. To not have to pay anything, just give up the car. For health-insurance, you either pay or get fined. To not have to pay anything you have to be dead.
I have a feeling that if it goes as far as the Supreme Court, they’d hear it. I have no clue on what the ruling would be, but I think they would hear it.
I am wondering what the unintended consequences of overturning the mandate will be. Suppose SCOTUS declares the mandate unconstitutional, but the ban on pre-existing conditions stays. Congress can’t repeal the bill, because Republicans don’t control the Senate or the White House. That will bankrupt the insurance companies, because only the sick people will get insurance, and they can’t be turned down. Will that mean the end of private health insurance, and the inevitability of federal socialized health insurance?
In a manner of speaking, yes.
The general concept is that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers, supreme law but limited to those specific grants of power the Constitution gives it. Congress starts out with zero power, in other words, and gains only those powers the Constitution gives it. As McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819), put it:
The states, on the other hand, have plenary power to legislate in any area – they start out with all the power of a sovereign, and surrender only those powers exclusive to the federal government.
So while I’m sure there are not fifty state rulings expressing the power of each state to enact a healthcare plan similar to that of the federal government, if you want to pick a specific state, I’m sure there IS a case for that state that expresses the general proposition that the state has plenary legislative power.
So the deal is get health insurance or pay extra taxes?
How is this any different than the government giving a tax deduction for mortgage interest, or having kids? Wouldn’t it be an identical argument that the government is mandating mortgaged home ownership, by imposing a tax penalty for those who don’t? I mean, there is no doubt that the government is allowed to levy taxes. So they can create a new tax on everyone, and give people who buy health insurance an equivalent deduction. How is that any different?
It’s not.
The only thing that the opponents have going for them is that it was (politically) described not so much as a tax that’s imposed on everyone, regardless, that you get back if you have qualifying coverage, but a penalty imposed on those who don’t have the coverage.
But it was (politically) described as such. That shouldn’t really change the legal effect/import of the enforcement mechanism.
Do you not understand the difference between, “Do X and get a reward,” and “Do X or you will be punished”?
When you get a job, you get rewarded with a check and you are contributing to society through taxes. Should we tax people who don’t have a job? The two are the same thing by your logic.
Reward and punishment are NOT the same thing.
Because that’s not what Congress did in this legislation. They could have approved a tax, spent the proceeds on the General Welfare (for health care), and even exempted or given a deduction to people who already had insurance. “Medicare for All” would clearly be within the Section Eight taxing and spending power.
um… we do. (and I don’t mean sales taxes)