Here’s a question: how does “general welfare” not encompass “public health”? After defense of the realm, it’s arguably the second most important function of government.
There’s no question that Congress could “collect taxes . . . to provide for the . . . general Welfare.” So instituting a single-payer system, or extending Medicare to all, would have raised no constitutional issue. What’s problematic is the hybrid system of continuing to use private insurance companies but requiring all persons to buy into the system.
Recognizing the potential problem, Congress structured the requirement in conjunction with a tax credit and penalty. But they’ve crawled out on thin ice, because Congress cannot disguise a police power—requiring citizens to do something rather than do nothing—as taxation or mere regulation of economic activity. This would obliterate the Section Eight limitations. Thus, learned professors of constitutional law can be found on both sides of this debate, and it will not be settled until the Supreme Court rules.
This is incorrect. The mandate only falls on those who earn above a certain income. Nobody’s stopping you from quitting your middle or upper class job (I’m using “you” in the generic sense, I don’t know your personal situation) and working at McDonald’s instead. See? It’s just as “voluntary” as car insurance!
I don’t believe that’s correct. The mandate falls on every one. The reimbursement for the mandate doesn’t.
I think there is a schism between what states can do and what the federal government can do.
The commerce clause has some limits and perhaps forcing people to pay for health insurance is outside those limits just as forcing kids to go to school might be beyond those limits.
Public education is not mandatory, you are allowed to home school. It is education that is mandatory not public school attendance.
There is no penalty whatsoever for those who cannot afford insurance. See page 128 of the pdf file of the law if you don’t believe me.
Grumman & **magellan01 **-- do you believe states may force individuals to purchase health insurance? If not, why not?
Morally, no. There are reasons why buying insurance can make an individual worse off - primarily because the insurer is charging more than the service is worth. Forcing someone to sabotage their own well being by buying an inferior product, supposedly for their own good, while simultaneously removing the strongest incentive not to make the product worse (a need to actually attract customers) is indefensible.
not sure how that is responsive to my post.
Here’s why I don’t understand the car insurance analogy:
My state (not the feds, but I think that’s a nitpicking distinction) doesn’t require me to buy car insurance to protect myself from an accident. They require me to buy car insurance to protect YOU if I cause an accident to you. It’s only liability insurance that’s required, not comprehensive. I have a policy which will pay your repair and medical bills if an accident is my fault, but it won’t net me a red cent if I total my car or injure myself or my passengers through my own fault or through your fault, or if a giant lizard crushes my car in a fit of pique. I don’t have the legal right to refuse to protect my fellow citizens from financial ruin caused by my actions, but I do have the legal right to refuse to protect myself and take my chances.
The health insurance requirement isn’t the same. It’s not a liability only issue. It doesn’t protect other citizens if I do something to cause them illness. It ONLY protects me, a grown adult with a brain theoretically capable of risk analysis, whether I want it or not.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for flat out socialized medicine and don’t care who hears it. But I can see the constitutional issue here, and it doesn’t compare to car insurance at all. I’m torn with this latest decision; the health care reform is better than what we had, but not nearly good enough. And I *really *hate that the insurance companies come out of it with a guarantee of a huge boost in businesses (albeit perhaps in 10 or 20 years, also record payouts as sick people they couldn’t deny start filing claims at a much greater rate.) I’d love for nothing more than to see it dismantled and replaced by an actual universal health care plan…but I’m afraid it will instead be dismantled and replaced by nothing at all. 
No, I meant legally.
Why do you think it’s nitpicking? Do you not acknowledge that the federal government has restrictions placed on it that the states do not?
No, people in DC who own a car are required to carry auto insurance.
Because I think the fact that the one is liability insurance and the other comprehensive personal insurance is an even more obvious difference between them, to a layperson. Most of us don’t make a great distinction between the powers of “The Feds” and “The State” - they’re all just “government” to many of us. But point out the difference between car insurance and health insurance, and the analogy is laid to rest, at least in all the conversations I’ve had about this IRL.
Yes, I acknowledge it, I’m just not prepared to argue it, because I don’t know a whole lot about it.
That depends on what 50 different constitutions say about the matter. But really, I don’t care: I’m not of the mindset that the government should be permitted to act immorally just because the government (or a previous government) says so.
The question is not my own; it was suggested by a law professor. But I think it’s a good one, because it gets at whether the objection is really about the commerce clause or not. As your answer suggests, your objection has to do more with your personal morality than with the law of the commerce clause.
I echo the objection to the current federal law.
Although I object to the… liberal (not “liberal as in liberalism,” but “liberal as in loose”) interpretation of the commerce clause in general – and think that the FDA should be reformed (under a constitutional amendment…) in order to continue operation (although slightly different…) under a more reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause.
(Does that make my point about my political beliefs?)
For the record: I’m for socialized medicine, think it’s entirely within the federal governments powers, and I think the current bill is firmly in a legally gray area, and not a light shade of gray.
Also, for what it’s worth, I think there’s a massive theoretical and practical difference between State and Federal governance. The Federal government should exist to protect the States from other federal governments, each other and natural disasters when necessary.
States should exist to, if possible, ensure the happy governance of the people within them, or barring happy governance at least safe governance. I think States, even, should be more regulatory entities than governance entities, however, leaving true governance to the localities, when possible.
Alcohol, Drugs, prostitution, public indecency and religion (as long as no one is oppressed) should all be as much under the purview of localities as possible – even education, within certain standards.
Health care, on the other hand, should be handled at as high a governance level as possible for one simple reason: The Law of Large Numbers. It’s what insurance works on and it’s a reasonable, realistic reason to implement the program on a national level rather than a state or local level.
As for it being outside of the scope of the federal government (and socialized medicine isn’t, but compelled purchase in my opinion might be): it’s why we have Constitutional Amendments.
I thought it was directly on point. People who are poor enough don’t have to buy health insurance, just like people who choose to forgo a car don’t have to buy car insurance. The government isn’t forcing everybody to have it, just certain categories of people who could chose to alter their behavior to no longer be in those categories. It’s perfectly analagous, as far as I can tell. What flaws did you see in my reasoning? You can refute it by showing what kind of penalty a person below the poverty line will face for not getting insured. The answer, as far as I can tell, is none whatsoever.
I couldn’t disagree more. Many people simply do not have a realistic option of not owning a car. Sure, you could find that magical place to live that is within walking distance of work, school, grocery store, doctor, etc. or everyone could desert rural areas and living in major cities with public transportation.
But then, I would have to pay property tax on my residence (either directly, or indirectly through increased rent by my landlord). So why I could theoretically live under a bridge within walking distance to everything I need, bathing in the river that runs through town, but that isn’t a realistic option.
The whole “you don’t need a car” argument is simply not true for a very large number of people and I don’t see the difference in that and being forced to buy health insurance.