That isn’t the point. State and Federal governments can force you to do all sorts of things: pay your taxes, send your kids to school, refrain from murdering your neighbor, serve in the military, etc. What is it about buying health care that makes it separate from all other social obligations? I agree that it’s not ideal, but there was too much opposition to get a public option or real public health care passed.
The Tenth Amendment specifically forbids the federal government from exercising powers nit granted in the Constitution.
Where in the Constitution is the Federal government granted the power to make people buy products from a third party?
Article 1, Section 8:
So long as everyone is taxed equally for healthcare, Congress has the power to extend a tax credit to those who show evidence they have obtained private health care of their own.
Correct. Actually, there’s not even a “taxed equally” requirement. Congress has to use the taxation power in proportion to the census, not as a direct tax, or as a tax on income. As long as they do that, they can extend a tax credit for almost any reason they please.
Where in the Constitution is the Federal government granted the power to forbid me from carrying an assault rifle into the Capital building and opening fire?
You seriously have never even picked up a copy of the Constitution, have you?
Have you? The section you quoted doesn’t even come close to answering my question.
The point is that the federal government does plenty of things that aren’t explicitly stated in the constitution. To say that health care is somehow unacceptable while the rest are fine is just special pleading on the behalf of people who don’t like health care. So, in this case “unconstitutional” = “I don’t like it”.
It’s not health care that’s unacceptable, it’s forcing people to buy a product (health insurance) from a third party.
But you admit, Congress has the power to tax, and to grant tax credits, correct?
Then support a real public health care system. It’s going to happen one way or another; for Republicans to throw a tantrum and claim a compromise that they originally proposed is “unconstitutional” based on some vague distinction is just the height of partisan dickishness.
Yes. They make us read it in law school.
And yes, the section I quoted answer your question precisely.
You asked:
And I answered:
The US Capitol is in “such District … [as is] the seat of the government of the United States.” The section I quoted gives Congress the ability to exercise general plenary power in that area, as well as in all other buildings that are owned by the federal government.
First of all, I agree that the health care mandate is constitutional. But it seems to me that you are utterly unaware of the distinction between state and federal powers.
So why don’t you give me an example of something the federal government does that is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, and I will endeavor to explain what the Constitutional basis for the power is.
And while we’re at it, let me give you an example or two of the federal government being unable to do something because the Constitution odes not give them the power.
-
The federal government cannot make a law forbidding gun possession in or near schools. (US v Lopez)
-
The federal government can’t give victims of gender-based violence a right to sue their attackers in federal court. (US v Morrison)
You are just not getting it. If there was a real tax of the kind that the Federal government is permitted to impose, and a credit allowed for purchasing health insurance, there would not be a problem.
Good luck trying to pass that. Hence this back door attempt. If we said, we would tax EVERYONE 100% of their first 1000 of income (from ANY source) and then you could get a $1000 credit if you bought health insurance, that would be constitutional, and political poison. It shouldn’t be, but it is.
Maybe the constitution is stupid, but that doesn’t mean you get to ignore it. Otherwise get ready for organized prayer in public school. Some other 50.1% of the population might conclude that the constitutional prohibition of that is stupid.
Who ever said I don’t? I’d far rather see the US go to a single payer system than the cock-up that is Obamacare.
I’m far from the right, in fact I’d be totally down with real UHC, but this just seems dumb to me. If the problem is that people can’t afford health care… Who’s bright idea was to just make it against the law to NOT buy health care? Yeah, that will solve the problem. 
It’s even worse than “Let them eat cake”, it’s “MAKE them eat cake”. If only we could force starving people to eat. I have an idea, let’s make it against the law to be murdered and/or robbed? That would stop crime entirely, right?
So medical care is a dessert treat. Right.
That’s all he could get through. He wanted more but he is practical, which satisfies nobody.
You do know there is more to health care reform than just mandatory insurance, right?
Let me just preface this post by saying that I am FAR from being a constitutional scholar.
Ok, I strongly support HC reform; I would’ve infinitely prefered the formation of a true single-payer system instead of the compromised bill that we got, but, as somebody else already stated, even though Obama wanted more he had to settle for what could be practically achieved. And who knows, Vermont recently passed legislation that will make it the first state to have a true single-payer health care system starting in 2017, and if it’s successful maybe it’ll spread to the rest of the country. It kind of sucks that you have to be thinking SO long-term on an issue as simple to solve as health care (just expand Medicare to cover EVERY DAMN CITIZEN, problem solved), but that’s just the country we live in.
I do remember that the main argument AGAINST the public option (while it was still on the table) was that it couldn’t be a part of the reform bill because it would’ve been UNFAIR to the insurance companies; they couldn’t have possibly competed against a government-run (ie cheaper and far more generous) program and stayed in business. I always thought that was a funny argument, too; if they were really desperate to stay afloat in light of the creation of a public option, then they would’ve had to become far more competitive anyway & offer incentives that would’ve made me want to choose their companies over the government plan. Y’know, they would’ve had to have acted like the CAPITALISTS that all of us Americans supposedly are.
Now on to the questions I have for the legal scholars on here:
If Article 1, Section 8 is the part of the Constitution that enables the government to levy the individual mandate, then what exactly is this Commerce Clause that I keep hearing about & that the fed keeps saying justifies the individual mandate? How is the Commerce Clause any different from Article 1, Section 8? If the language within the Constitution is already so firmly settled insofar as to the legality of the individual mandate, then why are the GOP and Tea Bagger’s questioning the IM’s constitutionality in the first place? Where does their argument come from? Do they have an actual chance of having the SCOTUS toss it out? Or is their entire argument baseless?
But he instead passed something that has too many problems, and makes the government look even worse - especially when he is running around granting permission to ignore it left and right.
Another path COULD have been to take Medicare, Tricare, whatever-they-call-fed-employee-care and Medicaid and combine them into one large program. This program would be FedCare, and we would not have multiple separate systems for providing care that is, in the end, paid for by the Federal Government’s collection of taxes.
In one movement, we do not increase any taxes, or change anyone’s current plans. We just create one large system run by the Feds. You could then have proof that this can be easily managed by the Federal government. Quality would be there due to the strength of Federal unions, and the unwillingness to look like you are being cruel to military retirees.
Then, slowly, over time, you open up more people to being able to access this plan. You do that by having another bill a few years later where you make more people at the bottom eligible for what used to be Medicaid. Soon you are covering the bottom of the income stream, plus the retirees.
Now you just need to make the tax deductions for health insurance available easily to everyone, instead of making people hostage to their employers.
Medicare does not pay enough to keep a doctor’s office open in many parts of the country. Many physicians cap the percentage of Medicare patients that they take, due to the reimbursements, the slow payment cycle, and the problems when dealing with Federal paperwork.
If you put everyone on Medicare (or the Fedcare I was making up earlier), you will still have a problem with the reimbursement levels.