# Is the Federal government mandating that I have another child? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 29, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157 "2012-03-29T14:05:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/21 "2012-03-30T13:33:46Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > You are entitled to your opinion but you don’t seem to give any reason for others to agree with you. You may prefer tax deductions over tax credits but the latter have been accepted as legitimate for a long time now. See post #10. I have no problem with tax credits, but this is not a tax credit. As I said, if this law is struck down and they try to restructure it as a credit (e.g. raise income taxes across the board by a flat amount with a “credit” for health insurance) then I would hope that the court sees that for the charade that it is. My other point was that if you have insurance through your employer, you already get a tax deduction on your premiums, so any further screwing with deductions for health insurance (except allowing them for private insurance) would be almost per se evidence of trying to skirt the SCOTUS decision (if they strike it down). ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/22 "2012-03-30T14:20:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What is the difference is between two offers I’ll make to you: > > 1. I’ll pay you $1,000 to give me a back rub. > > 2. I’ll fine you $1,000 if you don’t give me a back rub. Are you kidding us here? That has to be one of the most offensive “trick questions” I’ve seen posted by you over the years. I’ll let an expert who has actually argued 25 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States explain why. > [@Ronald Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried](#): > > I’ve never understood why regulating by making people go buy something is somehow more intrusive than regulating by making them pay taxes and then giving it to them. I don’t get it. **It was comical to read the Heritage Foundation’s brief attempting to explain why they were changing their position on this.** Something needed to be done about this problem. Everyone understood that. So, the Heritage Foundation said let’s do an individual mandate because it keeps it within free enterprise. The alternative was single payer. And they didn’t want that, and I’m in sympathy with that. **So now all of a sudden the free-market alternative becomes unconstitutional and terribly intrusive where a government imposition and government-run project would not be? I don’t get it. Well, I do get it. It’s politics.** > > … > > Politics, politics, politics. _You look at the wonderful decision by Jeff Sutton, who is as much of a 24-karat gold conservative as anyone could be. He is a godfather to the Federalist Society. Look at his opinion._\* Or look at Larry Silberman’s opinion. I don’t understand what’s gotten into people. Well, I do I’m afraid, but it’s politics, not anything else. No kidding. And it’s filthy tea party politics informed by ignorance and stupidity. And its managed to rise to the level of what is supposed to be an austere body of brilliant legal minds. It’s sickening to see. > [@Solicitor General Charles Fried](#): > > There’s all this stuff that got in there about creating commerce in order to regulate it. … But quite apart from that, what is the commerce? The commerce is not the health insurance market. The commerce is the health-care market, as [current solicitor general Donald] Verrilli said a million times. \*\*And it’s very hard to deny that. > \*\* > There is a market for health care. It’s a coordinated market. A heavily regulated market. Is Congress creating the market in order to regulate it? It’s not creating it! The market is there! Is it forcing people into it in order to regulate them? In every five-year period, 95 percent of the population is in the health-care market. Now, it’s not 100 percent, but I’d say that’s close enough for government work. And in any one year, it’s close to 85 percent. Congress isn’t forcing people into that market to regulate them. **The whole thing is just a canard that’s been invented by the tea party and Randy Barnetts of the world, and I was astonished to hear it coming out of the mouths of the people on that bench.** > > [Reagan’s solicitor general: ‘Health care is interstate commerce. Is this a regulation of it? Yes. End of story.’](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/reagans-solicitor-general-health-care-is-interstate-commerce-is-this-a-regulation-of-it-yes-end-of-story/2011/08/25/gIQAmaQigS_blog.html) We’ve been taking people’s money out of their _paychecks_ for decades, to “force” them to pay into a retirement fund and an old-age medical fund. Now Congress is saying that the young and healthy who use (and they _do_ use it) medical care _now_, not 40 or 50 years from now when they turn some magical number, but right here and _now_, will have to pay **their fair share into the existing market** that everyone else has been propping up for them for years. \*So what did 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jeffery Sutton have to say on the matter? > [@](#): > > [Federal Appeals Court Upholds Health Care Law](http://www.npr.org/2011/06/29/137506928/federal-court-upholds-health-care-law) > > … Jeffrey Sutton, is a prominent conservative. > > **Appointed to the appeals court by President George W. Bush in 2003, Judge Sutton is no ordinary conservative. He served as a law clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, an icon of the conservative movement. And, as a litigator, he was at the forefront of making modern states’ rights arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court.** But in this case, he rejected similar arguments in the context of the national health care law. > > … > > In his 27-page opinion, Judge Sutton said that **the health care law meets the classic tests that the Supreme Court has imposed in deciding whether Congress has acted within its authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause** , the provision that empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce or matters that otherwise “substantially affect” interstate commerce. > > Noting that health care is a $2.5 trillion industry, Sutton said that “no matter how you slice the relevant market,” virtually all of it affects interstate commerce, and Congress may constitutionally regulate such interstate economic activity. “Few people escape the need to obtain health care at some point in their lives, and most need it regularly,” he observed. Everyone will eventually have some sort of big emergency bill that, left to their own devices, most individuals would be unable to pay. **The health care mandate, he concluded, is little more than a requirement that everyone have insurance now so taxpayers and hospitals will not be left holding the bag later.** Indeed, as he observed, federal law actually requires hospitals to accept many patients without regard to their capacity to pay. > > Furthermore, wrote Sutton, “ **No one is inactive when deciding how to pay for health care** , as self-insurance and private insurance are two forms of action for addressing the same risk. Each requires affirmative choices; one is no less active than the other; and both affect commerce.” Indeed. So when Solicitor General Verrilli entered the court to argue on behalf of The People, he had some of the most studied, knowledgeable and _relevant_ opinions bolstering The People’s position. And how did the Court address him? > [@Charles Fried](#): > > … the solicitor general is treated with great deference by the justices not because of his title but because he is trusted to give on behalf of the government a sober, accurate, measured presentation that is scrupulously fair to the other side of the argument and insists on stating the strengths and weaknesses of his own case. > > … > > What he encountered instead was a barrage of hyperbolic, hostile rhetoric redolent of Tea Party–inspired slogans \*\*(we even had the broccoli canard) \*\*masquerading as questions, which are supposed to clarify the presentation and probe for weaknesses. > > [The government’s chief advocate got hammered for his defense of Obamacare before the Supreme Court. Former Solicitor General Charles Fried on what his critics got wrong.](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/29/solicitor-general-s-critics-wrong-about-his-defense-of-obamacare.html) It was downright appalling. Seeing that same low level of rhetoric posted here isn’t nearly as shocking, but it’s exactly as absurd. ---
**Author:** ![wheresmymind](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@wheresmymind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wheresmymind)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/23 "2012-03-30T16:41:05Z")
> [@Drum\_God](#): > > My child has done nothing new, yet my tax will go up. He has only gotten a year older. He’s had the nerve to keep on living, darn it, and that is causing me to pay a penalty come income tax time. If I don’t want to pay that penalty, then I must (along with my wife) choose to have another child. **That feels awfully coercive to me.** His dependency status doesn’t have anything to do with it. In addition to the Child Tax Credit, I get the standard deduction for having a dependent. That offsets some of the cost of having this kid leech off of my hard-earned money. The deduction doesn’t go away in 2012, just the Child Tax Credit. We take deductions for myself and my wife, too. > > […] > Frankly, I’ve never understood the purpose of the Child Tax Credit. I also have never understood why it goes away at 17. It’s not like the kid got any less expensive (in fact, he gets significantly more expensive). **Giving this $1000 annual credit doesn’t encourage me to do, or not do, anything.** […] Bolding mine. So how is something that doesn’t encourage any action on your part coercive? As you noted, a paltry $1000 per year is a drop in the bucket when it comes to raising a child. So you’re really not “paying a penalty” by not having another kid, you’re actually saving thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars per year. Only an idiot would say “hmm, I’m gonna have a kid so I can get an extra grand back at tax time” without realizing that even if they gave you TEN grand, having a child would still likely be a losing proposition, financially speaking. I’m NOT calling you an idiot, just calling to your attention that no one would feel financially coerced into having a child based on a $1000 tax refund. Once when I was really really sick, my mom gave me all the ice cream I wanted. My whole class wrote me get-well cards. Everyone was nice to me and waited on me hand and foot. Then I got better, and the special treatment stopped. But I didn’t feel like their special treatment was “coercing” me into staying sick. Being healthy and not throwing up 10 times a day was worth not getting unlimited ice cream. ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/24 "2012-03-30T20:59:49Z")
> [@wheresmymind](#): > > Bolding mine. So how is something that doesn’t encourage any action on your part coercive? If the purpose of the Child Tax Credit isn’t to encourage me to support a child under the age of seventeen, then what is its purpose? What I was saying is that, since the amount is so small relative to the cost of supporting a child, it cannot encourage me to do it. I didn’t mean that it wasn’t an attempt to encourage me to have a kid, just that it wasn’t effective at encouraging me to have a kid. Add to that that the decision whether or not have children includes factors that go far beyond simple finances. Even if the Child Tax Credit were $500K per year, many would still choose not to have children. ---
**Author:** ![wheresmymind](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@wheresmymind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wheresmymind)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/25 "2012-03-31T19:27:52Z")
It’s not to _encourage_ you to support a child, it’s to _help_ you support one. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/26 "2012-03-31T21:36:37Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > You can be put in prison for not paying the fine. You can’t be put in prison for not accepting the credit. The difference really is that simple; one situation is coercive and one is not. (If one is committing fraud with the child credit, that’s a different situation entirely; I’m comparing non-fraudulent resistance in each situation). > > This isn’t a normative argument. I’m not saying that the coercive nature of the mandate is a good or a bad thing, or whether or not it’s constitutional. Too bad the comparison is not what you claimed, then. It would be claiming the $1000 credit even though your child is older. Of course they aren’t going to arrest you for giving them extra money. They will for withholding it, although a garnishment is a better option. As for Bricker’s question: The difference would be that in one scenario, I can get more money, and in the other one the best I can do is stay the same. But that’s not the case in this setup. In both setups you end up with the same amount of money. The only difference is in how you phrase it. In one scenario, we both owe the government, say, $10,000 in taxes, but the government gives one of us a $1000 credit, making our total $9,000. In the other, we both owe $9000 in taxes, but the government makes the other one of us give $1000 more. The only difference is the point of view. If it were not this way, then the entire concept of change wouldn’t work. If X + Y = Z, then there cannot be any difference between giving the government $X and giving the government $Z and them giving me $Y. This is basic math. The only difference is that one makes some people feel cheated while the other doesn’t. But the raw facts show that those feelings are illusory. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2012, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/27 "2012-03-31T21:46:50Z")
Rephrasing that middle paragraph to be clearer: But that’s not the case in this setup. In both setups you end up with the same amount of money. The only difference is in how you phrase it. Imagine there are two of us, one of us who pays for health insurance (A) and one of us who doesn’t (B). If buying healthcare gives us a tax credit, we both owe the government, say, $10,000 in taxes, but the government gives one of us a $1000 credit, making that person’s total $9,000 (A), while the other one stays $10,000 (B). If the government instead charges a fee to the person who doesn’t buy health insurance, we both owe $9000 in taxes, but the government makes the one of us (B) give $1000 more. This makes that person’s (B) total $10,000, but the other’s (A) is only $9000. Either way A gives $9,000, while B gives $10,000. The only difference is that, in one scenario, B feels cheated. But since the amount of money is the same either way, this cheating is illusory. If it were not this way, the concept of change wouldn’t work… ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/28 "2012-04-01T02:14:32Z")
> [@Drum\_God](#): > > If the purpose of the Child Tax Credit isn’t to encourage me to support a child under the age of seventeen, then what is its purpose? What I was saying is that, since the amount is so small relative to the cost of supporting a child, it cannot encourage me to do it. I didn’t mean that it wasn’t an attempt to encourage me to have a kid, just that it wasn’t effective at encouraging me to have a kid. Add to that that the decision whether or not have children includes factors that go far beyond simple finances. Even if the Child Tax Credit were $500K per year, many would still choose not to have children. For a lot of people that will factor in to whether they can afford to have kids, yeah - I mean, obviously money isn’t the only factor people take into account, but it is one of them. As **jtgain** said, you can earn a certain amount of money before income tax kicks in. Think of the thousand dollars as your child’s non-taxable income amount being added to yours. But if you acknowledge that raising kids costs more than $1000pa, I’m really not sure how you can say you’re losing out on $1,000pa by not having another child. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/29 "2012-04-01T15:28:04Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Either way A gives $9,000, while B gives $10,000. The only difference is that, in one scenario, B feels cheated. But since the amount of money is the same either way, this cheating is illusory. If it were not this way, the concept of change wouldn’t work… I don’t think that it is illusory at all. Imagine a law that stated that every citizen must be sentenced to 10 years in prison just for living. However, if the citizen does not rob a bank this year, then the sentence is waived. This law would have absolutely the same effect that the current laws against bank robbery have. But here is my problem with this situation. The “credit” they are giving you is illusory. There was never before a reason that you would have to do 10 years in prison, so their generosity in waiving your 10 year prison term is not generosity at all. In the same manner, if they can’t punish you for not having health care (assuming SCOTUS strikes it down) then they shouldn’t be able to accomplish the same thing by a different manner. Legislative intent is something that courts look at all of the time. With the Child Tax Credit that is a good faith attempt to reduce a family’s tax bill when they have greater expenses than a family that does not have a child. We can see that from the legislative history. If this law is struck down, and Congress gets together for the express purpose of raising everyone’s income tax by a flat $1k but with a “credit” of $1k for having health insurance, we can look at the evidence and see that they did it for the express purpose of skirting the Supreme Court’s decision. Plus the “having health insurance credit” wouldn’t make sense because it doesn’t reflect any change in your income level. If you have a job, then your premiums are already tax free. This “credit” would be for nothing except to be coercive. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/30 "2012-04-01T16:26:08Z")
I was wrong about the nature of **jtgain** ’s objection before. There is more to it than just a preference but is coercion much of an angle? Taxation is coercive. We could just taxed everyone and have the government insure them and this would be perfectly constitutional. How then is there a problem when concessions are made for private enterprise? I mean, I get that many don’t believe that universal health care is a legitimate goal but that’s not the issue here. The issue is in the delivery. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/31 "2012-04-01T16:34:31Z")
Taxation isn’t supposed to be coercive. I realize that Supreme Court precedent goes against my opinion here. Taxation is supposed to raise revenue in a policy neutral way so the government can function. I am opposed to using taxation to coerce people into doing things that are beyond the power of the federal government to directly regulate. I would assume that when President Santorum gets a bill passed enacting a $1 million tax on every abortion performed, that somehow the left won’t readily agree that the tax power is unlimited. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/32 "2012-04-01T17:14:03Z")
Taxation can’t not be coercive. If people aren’t forced to pay taxes then they aren’t taxes, they are donations. And directly regulating the health care market is entirely within the federal government’s purview. It’s interstate commerce after all. You can’t regulate in a policy neutral way. Deciding to regulate (or not to) is a policy question. > [@](#): > > I would assume that when President Santorum gets a bill passed enacting a $1 million tax on every abortion performed, that somehow the left won’t readily agree that the tax power is unlimited. It is possible to disagree on policy questions without reference to constitutional principles. But yeah you are right. People will argue that Santorum can’t do it instead of that he shouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/33 "2012-04-01T17:26:12Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Taxation can’t not be coercive. If people aren’t forced to pay taxes then they aren’t taxes, they are donations. They are coercive in the sense that you have to pay them. But generally taxes are there to raise money, not to stop you from pursuing an activity. Sales taxes, property taxes, and income taxes aren’t in place to keep people from buying stuff, owning a home, and having a job. They are there simply to raise money. A tax on abortions or for not having health insurance is clearly not there to raise revenue, but to punish. And the whole statement about regulating interstate commerce is one the Court is dealing with right now…can you regulate by forcing participation? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/34 "2012-04-01T17:47:50Z")
The law doesn’t force anyone to participate in the health care market because everyone is already involved. Everyone uses health care at some point. Being forced to pay the same cost as everyone else isn’t a punishment. It’s necessary to ensure that others don’t have to pay your share (assuming we don’t just tax everyone and have the government provide the insurance). ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/35 "2012-04-01T17:52:41Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > The law doesn’t force anyone to participate in the health care market because everyone is already involved. Everyone uses health care at some point. Being forced to pay the same cost as everyone else isn’t a punishment. It’s necessary to ensure that others don’t have to pay your share (assuming we don’t just tax everyone and have the government provide the insurance). Like Scalia pointed out and has been discussed in other threads, of course if you use the term “health care market” we all participate in it. Why should we draw such a broad line? We all participate in the “food” market but that doesn’t give the feds the power to mandate that I buy slim jims every week. Name an activity, and I will put it in a broad enough category so as to make sure everyone participates in my broad market. Then the feds can force a purchase for everything under that standard. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/36 "2012-04-01T18:28:05Z")
Your failure to buy Slim Jims does not increase the necessary costs for everyone else. Is there any other market like health care? Where everyone will need it and at unpredictable times such a large amount that it would bankrupt nearly any individual and if you don’t get it you will die? I don’t think so. Name one and I’ll be wrong. Name three and I’ll be impressed. Name five and you’ll start to have a point that there is a slope to become slippery. (Sorry if this is repetitive. I’m not following the other thread.) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/37 "2012-04-01T18:35:53Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Your failure to buy Slim Jims does not increase the necessary costs for everyone else. Is there any other market like health care? Where everyone will need it and at unpredictable times such a large amount that it would bankrupt nearly any individual and if you don’t get it you will die? I don’t think so. Name one and I’ll be wrong. Name three and I’ll be impressed. Name five and you’ll start to have a point that there is a slope to become slippery. > > (Sorry if this is repetitive. I’m not following the other thread.) I could label that same market “catastrophic health care.” One where not everyone will be a participant in. So why does the government need to mandate contraception coverage and routine doctor visits under the same scheme that regulates heart transplants? I contend that they are vastly different markets. The only reason that my failure to buy health insurance will increase the costs for everyone else is because Congress mandated that. Can Congress really increase its own power by passing laws to create a problem, and then needing follow up laws to correct the problem? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/38 "2012-04-01T21:21:11Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I could label that same market “catastrophic health care.” One where not everyone will be a participant in. So why does the government need to mandate contraception coverage and routine doctor visits under the same scheme that regulates heart transplants? I contend that they are vastly different markets. You can do so but I don’t see how it helps your argument at all. That’s certainly not an example of another market with the conditions I pointed out. Unless you find some that do how can the mandate be seen as anything more than a limited exercise of power? > [@](#): > > The only reason that my failure to buy health insurance will increase the costs for everyone else is because Congress mandated that. Can Congress really increase its own power by passing laws to create a problem, and then needing follow up laws to correct the problem? This is not so. People without health insurance cost the rest of us money before ACA and will continue to do so if the law is completely invalidated by an activist court. People with no ability to pay get treatment at emergency rooms and the rest of us pay for it. This is a fundamental issue with free market health care in a society compassionate enough not to just close the door in the face of sick or injured people even if they cannot afford the care they need. Lets note that if we moved away from private insurance to a single payer model there would be no constitutional issue. We could tax and spend for everyone as we already do for Medicare. If a more intrusive program is legitimate then serious can the problems with Obamacare be? ---
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/39 "2012-04-02T12:00:51Z")
I don’t have kids and have only ever claimed myself on my taxes, so I have a clarification question to ask. You said your AGI was effectively going to go up by $1k next year. That’s not the same thing as your tax liability increasing by $1k, unless you’re in a 100% tax bracket. And if, indeed, this is just a $1k increase to your _taxable income_ (as opposed to a $1k increase in your _tax_ _liability_), at worst (for a theoretical one-percenter with no tax shelters) this would cost you $350. More likely, if you’re middle-class with a more modest income, it will cost you a couple hundred bucks at the most. Which did you mean? ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157/40 "2012-04-02T13:23:35Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > You can be put in prison for not paying the fine. You can’t be put in prison for not accepting the credit. The difference really is that simple; one situation is coercive and one is not. (If one is committing fraud with the child credit, that’s a different situation entirely; I’m comparing non-fraudulent resistance in each situation). > > This isn’t a normative argument. I’m not saying that the coercive nature of the mandate is a good or a bad thing, or whether or not it’s constitutional. The “resistance” to the child situation would be claiming it without having another kid first. So no, committing fraud isn’t a different situation entirely. It is the situation. > [@Drum\_God](#): > > I also have never understood why it goes away at 17. It’s not like the kid got any less expensive (in fact, he gets significantly more expensive). Then you’re doing it wrong. You can toss an 18-yr old out of your house. He doesn’t have to cost you anything. Any aid you give him at this point is of your own free will, not mandatory. So why should the tax payer subsidize you and your charity? > [@Shayna](#): > > Now Congress is saying that the young and healthy who use (and they _do_ use it) medical care _now_, not 40 or 50 years from now when they turn some magical number, but right here and _now_, will have to pay **their fair share into the existing market** that everyone else has been propping up for them for years. Nothing makes my political blood boil more than the phrase “their fair share.” Show me the calculus that demonstrates what a “fair share” is, and how the young and healthy are paying less than it. Somebody has to be subsidizing somebody, and I guarantee you, it ain’t the sick ones holding up the healthy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-federal-government-mandating-that-i-have-another-child/617157.md?page=3)