To a private party? The only precedent I can think of is that Supreme Court case where the Court (wrongly) decided that a township could force citizens to sell their land to a developer, because the town would get more tax money from the development than the homeowners.
I misremember the name of the case.
Regards,
Shodan
Health insurance seems like one of those no-brainer things that everyone should, can, and does sign up for as soon as they have both the means and some actual need to behave like responsible adults. I can’t imagine ever wanting people not to have health insurance.
So if I were hearing something like this from the right, I’d understand:
“I think it’d be great if everyone had health insurance. If hospitals didn’t have to worry about eating vast amounts of money providing emergency care, I believe they could provide better service for everyone. If we could educate people on how much a major, unexpected medical condition could destroy their finances, their credit, and their lives, I think they’d be better off. If we could devote private and/or public dollars to such education in order to encourage people to buy health insurance, much the same way I want to spend money on abstinence and anti-drug eduction, I think the US would be a better place. However, the constitution prohibits us from forcing people to buy insurance, so we’ll either need to amend the constitution or work within the unfortunate confines of our system.”
But that’s not what I’m hearing. It makes me think that republicans don’t actually have noble goals.
I guess “forcing the goverment to adhere to the limits of the constitution, no matter how detrimental the end result” is a noble goal, and somebody has to do it, but at some point those people just start to sound like jerks. And mostly I think that republicans just don’t want to pay more in taxes so that poor people can get better medical care.
I’m still not completely understanding the people who virulently condemn “the government forcing us to buy a private product”, but a few years ago they supported it over alternatives like a new single-payer system, expanding Medicare, a non-mandated public option, etc. The government can’t force us to buy a product from a private company, but removing the private company aspect is somehow anathema too?
I assume that you’re referring to taxes. The federal government definitely has the power to tax us to pay for universal health care. In the debate that led to the passage of the health care plan, that idea was considered to be politically impossible by just about everyone. The mandate to buy something is the issue. Some have attempted to portray the penalties for not buying insurance as a tax, but it is clearly a fine.
People who lose their jobs are not buying health insurance. You are offered a chance to buy a Cobra plan which only costs your entire unemployment check. You can not afford it, so you run around hoping you will get lucky.
The mandate will have to help out the poor and unemployed who can not afford our overpriced health care. I do not know how much help the government will provide. In most cases, it will require a lot.
There’s a federal premium subsidy, but I’ve not seen any information as to how much the subsidy will be.
Kelo v. City of New London which redefined “public use” as producing the most tax revenue.
Yes, I did have taxes in mind, and I would prefer a universal health care system.
However, does the federal government have the right to provide conditional tax rebates or deductions? Could they, for instance, tax everyone to pay for universal health insurance, but provide some offset mechanism for those people who find some other means to secure health insurance?
This all seems like a big pile of semantics to me, and none of it entirely unprecedented.
I don’t think even the current SCOTUS would find the HCB unconstitutional, although I personally find it so. I think we can all find instances where we disagree with the court, but they’re the only ones who matter.
I think that the principled opposition would agree that your proposed plan is onstitutional, but I’m sure there are many who would argue (on whatever hand-waving grounds) that it still is somehow unconstitutional.
Sure, the tax code is full of stuff like that. The problem is that a tax funded universal health care plan can’t be passed. There is a large group of voters who are vehemently opposed to it on philosophical grounds, viewing it as socialism, and viewing socialism as a bad thing.
The semantics here are important in a fundamental way. The federal government has vast powers, one of which is to tax and spend. Compelling everyone to buy something is not among those powers, and many people would prefer that this power not be added to the list. If universal health care is the goal, there is a mechanism within the constitution for enacting and paying for it. This bill did not use that mechanism because it was politically impossible. The administration made the (mostly) correct assumption that people wouldn’t see the constitutional problem with the mandate.
I thought this requirement to buy health insurance was a way to prevent people from only getting insurance once they have an expensive sickness. If you are going to force insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions, this seems to be a necessity.
Thanks - I remembered it as Kelso and couldn’t find anything.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, that was the reason. But you still can’t violate the constitution just because you think it’s a good idea.
I imagine that makes sense. But for purposes of advocacy, it’s a lot easier to sell “people shouldn’t be forced to buy health insurance” than “insurance companies shouldn’t be forced to insure folks who are already sick.”
Even though the two ideas go hand in hand.
The subsidy will cover anyone below 400% of the federal poverty line. Wiki has a chart of the subsidies (under current law) here: Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia
The details are here: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/Title I/Subtitle E/Part I/Subpart A - Wikisource, the free online library
It fails on the most important point, and the one you missed. It is not illegal to not have health insurance, but it is illegal to drive without auto insurance.
All the insurance mandate is is a tax on people who don’t buy health insurance. Which is a rather reasonable position to take, as those without long term health insurance will almost certainly cost the government money when they require health care.
The primary argument is as Algher stated: The States have the right to mandate insurance, the Fed does not.
I do not agree with that, but I’m far from being a constitutional scholar. It seems to me that if they have the right to act for the general health and safety to create the FDA and FAA, then they have the right to require health insurance.
The practical bottom line which gets ignored is this: We are already paying for the health care of the uninsured. We are paying the highest possible price, because they are forced to get their care from the hospital Emergency Rooms, and only after the illness has progressed uneccessarily.
It makes much more sense to provide the care in a planned and low-cost manner, allowing for preventative care and planned management of chronic conditions. And we get the added benefit of a healthier, stronger populace who miss less work - or are more able to work when work becomes available.
/Tangent In Virginia, every vehicle must be insured, regardless of whether it is drivable, much less driven on public roads. angent
Known in the TruCeltverse as “The day the USA jumped the shark.”
People who recognise that the cost of the product the insurers are selling is not inherently lower than the benefit it provides. And by extension, everyone. By letting people refuse to buy the product, it makes it harder for the insurers to engage in anti-competitive trading practices, and colluding to rip people off by offering an overpriced product nobody wants.
The purpose of the mandate is to prevent people from gaming the system - forgoing insurance until they need it, then purchasing it when they get sick since by law the insurance companies can’t turn you down.
For all those vehemently against the mandate to buy insurance, how does this compromise sound?
Everyone has the option of “opting in”. If you choose to opt in, you can’t be turned down no matter what.
If you choose not to participate, you must sign a waiver saying that if you get sick later, insurance companies won’t be forced to cover you. You refused the mandate, then got cancer? Tough luck. You die.
Maybe not to be so harsh, give you the option of opting in every 5 years or so.
Would those against the mandate support this? If not, why?