I believe HRC’s health care plan mandates that a person must purchase health insurance. Will this be legal?
It depends on how she does it. I started a thread on this a few weeks back, here .
Its legal in Canada, although I believe the employer is required to foot the bill.
No, the taxpayers foot the bill. Good employers offer supplemental things for such inconsequentials as dental care for those over 14, and for prescription drugs.
One thing I didn’t mention in the other thread is an argument that really hasn’t been tried in court very much.
It’s sort of a legal academic idea being tossed around, but it goes something like this: While federal spending and income tax power are plenary, it cannot be used as a pretext to do things not related to other federal powers. So, the feds can’t tax only those people who endorse the administration; it can’t extend copyrights to only those corporations which it thinks are patriotic; etc. And, perhaps, it cannot tax those who choose not to buy insurance from a list of possible insurance carriers because this would infringe on the state realm.
Some of those actions would be subject to other challenges as well, but this is a separate structural challenge based on federalism.
I don’t know if that flies in federal court. I suspect that like many legal academic arguments, it will take a while for it to filter into actual practice (if ever). But it’s worth thinking about.
It’s not just a liberal idea. As Republican governor, Mitt Romney’s health care plan in Massachusetts makes health insurance mandatory:
Who said anything about it being a liberal idea?
In any case, obviously states have much more power to do this sort of thing than the feds.
Since the Congress can pass legislation enacting it, how would it NOT be legal?? 
OH, you mean, is it constitutional? Well, here’s an idea: check to see if there is some provision of the constitution that it may violate. If not, there is your answer. If you think you find one, then we have something to discuss. 
It’s quite common for an employer to pay for provincial health care (in those provinces where it’s not “free”) and many employers also pay for supplementary health care (prescriptions, ambulance rides, private/semiprivate hospital accomodation, psychologists/chiropractors/etc.), however they don’t have to pay for either. My employer’s behaviour is a little unusual - they don’t pay for the basic provincial health care premiums, but they do pay for Blue Cross (one of several places you can get supplementary health care).
Here in the UK we have a National Health System, which is paid for out of taxes.
So if you pay taxes, you pay for the Health System.
Now if you can find something in Article I Section 8 that does give this power to Congress, then you have an argument that it’s constitutional. But under the Constitution the burden is on those proposing that Congress has power to require health insurance, not the other way round.
Of course, as this makes clear, for states it’s the opposite: the states can do whatever they want unless the U.S. or State Constitution say they can’t.
Not entirely true. Whilst there’s little doubt that some proportion of all tax revenue is spent on the NHS, the actual deduction from salary that entitles someone to claim NHS care (free at the point of use) is National Insurance.
You’re only eligible for NHS care if you pay National Insurance (which covers healthcare, pension, unemployment insurance etc). National Insurance is a seperate salary deduction in addition to income tax, and like income tax is proprtionate to your income.
One could make an argument that the Art I Sec 8 power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce may allow Congress to mandate health insurance coverage.
Whether that argument would hold water, however, is a matter of opinion at this point.
Ravenman, how do you imagine that argument would work? I honestly can’t see any viable connection.
Yeah, but that’s not exactly comparable to an American politician telling us that we’re required to purchase private health insurance (or enroll in medicare/medicaid). With the NHS the government says “We’re taking this tax money to pool it for the public good, which you will benefit from”*. In the US, it would be more like the government saying “You must spend your own money on something personal that will only benefit you individually.”
*Glossing over the part where everyone who pays taxes in the UK does not necessarily benefit from the NHS, nor does paying UK taxes even mean you’re covered under it.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone in the UK who didn’t benefit from the NHS. Even if they don’t directly benefit (say they’re ineligible through non-payment of NI) they would benefit indirectly.
Yes, of course. It’s easy to structure a “mandate to buy” as a tax. The federal government already mandates that we “buy” retirement insurance at a cost of 6.2% of our income (with another 6.2% paid by our employer), and has been doing so for 70 years. The health care mandate, if it passes, will take the form of a tax that you gain exemption from either by having low income or by buying a private insurance policy that meets certain government-imposed standards.
Well, for example, I lived there for six months. I worked, legally, and a big ol’ chunk of my paycheck went to the NHS. But because I’m not a citizen nor was I settled there (by Immigration standards) I didn’t benefit from the NHS. If I got sick I would’ve had to pay full price to see a doctor; if I’d needed to go to the emergency room, I would’ve been billed full price for it.
I’m not saying it’s particularly common, but the NHS is not a 'if you’re here in the country it’s free" deal.
And I apologize for continuing what’s bordering on a hijack, but I just wanted to make myself clear.
Sure. If you had paid NI then you would have been entitled, but if not you’re not. I guess six months is too short a time to register (or something). It sounds like you just paid the income tax (and all the indirect taxes as well).
It’s legal when we’re forced to buy auto insurance. In fact, you can be sued if you don’t have it.
It’s not really the same thing. You must have auto insurance if you use public roads. You can drive around your own property as much as you want without insurance. Furthermore, usually the only form of auto insurance you are mandated to purchase is liability insurance. That is, you must be insured to ensure that if you cause harm to other people they will be compensated. Health insurance is for your own good, not for the good of others.
Even with the auto insurance mandate, uninsured rates are around 15%, which is roughly the rate of people without health insurance.