Is the individual mandate to purchase health insurance constitutional?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@NotreDame05

Yes but the imposition of the tax is predicated upon a failure to purchase something. The question is whether Congress can impose a tax on the basis somebody did not purchase something.

I do not have kids but I pay taxes to support schools.

[NotreDame05]

@Simplicio

I don’t see why not. The constitution gives them the power levy excise taxes, there isn’t any reason to think that doesn’t cover taxing not doing things.

Well, I think it is hasty to assert “there isn’t any reason” here. There may be reasons and some of them will undoubtedly be A.) original meaning of the taxing power did not include the power to tax people who did not purchase something or B.) this was not originally intended as a taxing power. In other words, the taxing power of Congress was understood or intended to be confined to those instances where the people purchased something, or they did something, as opposed to doing nothing or not purchasing something.

[Contrapuntal]

@BrightNShiny

You have a choice to do one of two things under this bill. When you get a choice to do one of two things, we usually refer to that as an option.

Which would you prefer, the hot lead enema, or the cat o’ nine tails?

[BrightNShiny]

@Contrapuntal

Which would you prefer, the hot lead enema, or the cat o’ nine tails?

Well, if you think paying a tax is the legal equivalent of a hot lead enema, that’s up to you, but I don’t think a court is going to agree with you.

[NotreDame05]

@BrightNShiny

So?

If you don’t think it can, then you have to throw out most of the tax code.

You have a choice to do one of two things under this bill. When you get a choice to do one of two things, we usually refer to that as an option.

I did. You’ve just chosen to pretend the tax code operates in some other way then it actually does.

No you did not. You just in a general manner said laws existed but have not cited any.

I don’t know how many ways to phrase this. The government can increase or lower your taxes based on your behavior.

I do not know how many times to phrase this either. Your general notion above, and it is very general, is not what we are talking about. We are specifically talking about Congress’ power to condition the imposition of a tax on the basis of not purchasing something, as opposed to this general notion you express above of Congress taxing behavior. When and if ever your general notion is sufficient enought to correctly describe what we are presently discussing, then you’d have an excellent point. At this time the general notion you articulate above is not what we are specifically and particularly talking about.

When you get a choice to do one of two things, we usually refer to that as an option.

I find this to be absolutely fantastic reasoning. So let’s use a hypothetical. According to your logic, a choice exists when one can A.) buy something or B.) pay 99.9% of their income in a tax for failing to buy the “something.” Now, by your logic this scenario constitutes as a choice, although under any notion of common sense it is not a choice.

Now, before you possibly retort with a remark my hypothetical is too extreme you need to consider the fact the imposition of the tax for some people will be considerable, and despite the burden of the tax imposed on the very less fortunate of our society, you can look them straight in the eye and tell them they have a choice. Non-sense.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Contrapuntal

Not if you don’t have a car.

You don’t have to live, either.

You can choose a life that does not allow you to recover from a major illness or injury, just as you can choose a life so constricted as to not include driving.

[Contrapuntal]

@BrightNShiny

Well, if you think paying a tax is the legal equivalent of a hot lead enema, that’s up to you, but I don’t think a court is going to agree with you.

Who said it was?

I’m just pointing out that having options is not always like having a real choice.

@Elvis

You don’t have to live, either.

What? Who said anything about having to have a car?

You can choose a life that does not allow you to recover from a major illness or injury, just as you can choose a life so constricted as to not include driving.

Or you can have a disability, or be restricted by age, or lack of sufficient income, or not have a need to drive. Many people don’t have cars for other reasons than “choosing to live a [particular] life.”

[Mr_Smashy]

@Simplicio

I don’t see why not. The constitution gives them the power levy excise taxes, there isn’t any reason to think that doesn’t cover taxing not doing things.

There is a big discussion of this in another thread right now.

But short answer: the power to regulate commerce is very different from the power to force people to engage in commerce.

[jonesj2205]

@ElvisL1ves

Do you have auto insurance? Why or why not?

Call health care a tax if you prefer. Amounts to the same thing.

Aren’t those state laws? States being able to require something does not mean the federal government can as well.

[villa]

@NotreDame05

Yes but the imposition of the tax is predicated upon a failure to purchase something. The question is whether Congress can impose a tax on the basis somebody did not purchase something. Can Congress impose a tax for not purchasing a home? Can Congress impose a tax for failure to purchase a book? Can Congress impose a tax for failure to purchase some other good? The imposition of the tax having the express design, purpose, and intention to force people to purchase something.

Even if this were constitutionally problematic (which I don’t think it is), there is a very simple way out.

If you want the tax to be $1,000 per person not having health insurance, increase taxes by $1,000 per person. Then give a $1,000 per person tax credit for having health insurance.

[Mr_Smashy]

@ElvisL1ves

You don’t have to live, either.

You can choose a life that does not allow you to recover from a major illness or injury, just as you can choose a life so constricted as to not include driving.

The car insurance analogy doesn’t work, for many reasons:

a) we’re talking about federal powers here - car insurance is a state mandate… according to the constitution, states have the police powers

b) car insurance covers damage to others, not yourself

c) cars are driven on state property, ie public roads

THere are more, but that’s enough

[ElvisL1ves]

@jonesj2205

Aren’t those state laws?

The OP was asking a philosophical question about “the government” being able to force you to buy something, as if that were a new idea.

[Shodan]

@ElvisL1ves

The OP was asking a philosophical question about “the government” being able to force you to buy something, as if that were a new idea.

Actually, it was the federal government under discussion. Therefore, could you cite the federal law that mandates auto insurance?

Regards,
Shodan

[Mr_Smashy]

@villa

Even if this were constitutionally problematic (which I don’t think it is), there is a very simple way out.

If you want the tax to be $1,000 per person not having health insurance, increase taxes by $1,000 per person. Then give a $1,000 per person tax credit for having health insurance.

But they didn’t do that. Raising taxes is politically unpopular, especially in an election year.

And also capitation taxes must be apportioned by the states (*actually, the constitution says Census… dont forget to fill yours out!) and this one isn’t. So it’s constitutionally fatal.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@NotreDame05

We are specifically talking about Congress’ power to condition the imposition of a tax on the basis of not purchasing something, as opposed to this general notion you express above of Congress taxing behavior.

Would you feel better if Congress just raised taxes across the board then gave a tax break to anyone who buys their own insurance?

Note we do exactly that now when you buy a home. Because you bought something you get a tax break.

We can achieve the same exact effect and just do it this way because that arrangement sits with you better?

ETA: Beaten to it…ah well.

[ElvisL1ves]

The states can’t do anything the feds can’t under the fed constitution, remember?

Regards etc.,
ElvisL1ves

[kingbighair]

@ElvisL1ves

The OP was asking a philosophical question about “the government” being able to force you to buy something, as if that were a new idea.

Actually, I was wondering if it is permissible for the federal government to force you to buy something. Something which seems pretty novel. Is there a history of this practice?

[Lobohan]

I don’t know why this is so hard for some people to understand. Think of it this way, the govt. just raised taxes on everyone. You get a tax credit equal to the penalty if you have insurance coverage.

Anyone who think this is unconstitutional isn’t thinking clearly about the issue and getting bogged down in semantics.

[Contrapuntal]

@Lobohan

I don’t know why this is so hard for some people to understand. Think of it this way, the govt. just raised taxes on everyone. You get a tax credit equal to the penalty if you have insurance coverage.

That does seem to make some sense, but shouldn’t Obama (who I voted for) just go ahead and set it up that way, what with transparency in government being so important and all? Back door taxation is not really cricket.

[Simplicio]

@NotreDame05

Well, I think it is hasty to assert “there isn’t any reason” here. There may be reasons and some of them will undoubtedly be A.) original meaning of the taxing power did not include the power to tax people who did not purchase something or B.) this was not originally intended as a taxing power. In other words, the taxing power of Congress was understood or intended to be confined to those instances where the people purchased something, or they did something, as opposed to doing nothing or not purchasing something.

Well, if they didn’t intend it, they should have said so.

But in anycase, this is more or less the case with employer bought insurance now. If my employer pays me money, I have to pay taxes on it, if he buys me insurance, he doesn’t.