How will the SCOTUS rule on mandated insurance coverage?

[madville]

When the inevitable case about being mandated to buy private insurance from a corporation reaches the SCOTUS how do you think it will go down? I can see the conservative justices being torn between supporting the corporations or ruling against the Democrats. I can also see the more liberal justices being torn between supporting the Democrats or ruling in favor of freedom.

I really can't come up with an answer on this one. I think this could be one of the most unpredictable decisions we will ever see in front of the Supreme Court.

[WCGreen]

1. If there has already been a case brought about states requiring people

to have auto insurance then there would be a precedent to follow...

[cdsilv]

3. You have to carry auto liability insurance if AND ONLY IF you own a car and want

to drive it on public roads.

What is the 'condition' that mandatory health insurance that requires the purchase of a policy?

Access to health care facilities and personnel?

Living in the US of A?

Permission to work in the US of A (citizens & non-citizens)?

?

[unblock]

7. actually, you don't even have to have insurance, strictly speaking.

you also have the option of posting a large enough bond, essentially self-insuring.

of course, this generally makes sense only if you're quite wealthy, so it's not a practical option for many people at all. but the fact that it's legally offered helps the states argue that insurance isn't "mandatory".

[DJ13]

4. State law is different from federal law

[WCGreen]

16. I know that but if there is a case out there already that has been

adjudicated, then there is a basis for decision.

All laws eventually have to be measured against the Constitution.

The right to vote laws were all state and local laws and the Supreme Court ruled on them...

[Junkdrawer]

2. They will say the commerce clause covers it....

If there's a corporate consensus that it's needed, it's legal. Q.E.D.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. Congress has no granted powers to force people to buy a product.

Congress' powers are enumerated, and none of them include include forcing people to buy anything.
Not even the commerce clause would encompass this act of power.

I don't view a lack of commerce as being enforceable under the commerce clause. Congress has every right and authority to regulate commerce, especially interstate, and the actions of people involved in such commerce. However, I do not believe congress has the power to regulate any person NOT involved in commerce.

The purchasing of any product (for example, national scale health insurance) would certainly qualify as congressional regulated commerce. However, since when is not purchasing a product deemed commerce? The concept that an individual can be punished for NOT buying a product seems laughable. Not partaking in commerce is not commerce - ergo congress should have no regulatory power in such a situation. If one decides to buy private or public insurance... then by all means, congress has the right to regulate the living-shit out of that product and term of sale.

I mean, what if congress decided that in order to keep the American car industry healthy there would be mandate to all households to purchase a NEW AMERICAN vehicle at least every 3 years - or be penalized. Mandating such an action would have dramatic impact on interstate commerce... so therefore congress would be empowered to exercise such a mandate to purchase cars, right? Obviously, that concept is laughable as congress no such power. So what makes HCR any different in the eyes of the constitution? The bottom line with a mandate for insurance: The government is forcing people to buy a product or be penalized. Land of the free, huh? :eyes:

As you can see, I don't quite agree with the application of Wickard v. Filburn because Filburn's actions were already commerce. I believe that NOT partaking in commerce (not buying a product) is not commerce altogether and therefore unregulated.
If non-action on the part of private citizens can be penalized simply in the name of "affecting commerce"... then what by law CAN'T congress mandate an American to buy, as EVERYTHING we buy affects commerce.
I think a little "slippery-slope" tinfoil hat is in order here: :tinfoilhat:

[madville]

8. Sounds like this bill maybe be getting a slap down from both siges of the court

We can hope so anyway.

[girl gone mad]

11. It will go to the Court.

My feeling is that they will uphold the mandates, because the current court is corporatist to the bone, but it will be tested.

[tritsofme]

12. The implication of Filburn is that Congress probably could mandate you to buy

an car, if it could proved to effect interstate commerce.

However I doubt the Congress that passed such a mandate would stay in power very long.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. Wickard v. Filburn is not a good litmus for the HCR mandate debate.

In Wickard v. Filburn, Filburn was ALREADY engaging in commerce, albeit his farming was for personal use only.
While his commerce was entirely intrastate, it affected interstate commerce as well.

Congress can regulate commerce. They cannot mandate commerce. Not partaking in commerce is, by definition, NOT COMMERCE.
In the HCR mandate debate, you have not engaged in commerce until you purchase a policy.

If you ask me, forcing someone to do something without alternative choice is absolutely the antithesis of freedom.

[tritsofme]

17. Your decision not to purchase mandated health insurance would effect interstate commerce

in the aggregate.

Unless you were to never use any healthcare services, your choice not to purchase mandated insurance would effect the broader market, through higher overall costs, less diverse risk pools, ect and would definitely effect commerce in a way that the federal government has an interest, and the ability to regulate, including fines for non-compliance.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

19. That is a very dangerous line to take and sets a dangerous precedent.

Your unwillingness to be a homeowner effects the financial sector. Punish people into buying/renting homes to eliminate homelessness?
Your unwillingness to own a car affects the car industry. Punish people into supporting american manufacturing?
You unwillingness to install a home security system encourages crime. Punish people into buying home security?
Your unwillingness to have children affects future labor labor supply. Punish people into supporting the US population?

Every choice we make has future financial or social implications and may be of interest to the government.
However, the government cannot have carte blanche over the choices we choose NOT to make.
Under such rational, the government could punish you into doing/acting ANY such way it sees fit in the name of economics.

Congress has the power to tax for the general welfare.
Instead of mandating people PAY for insurance, why not just TAX them the same amount they would have paid?
Such action would be constitutional and more easily understood by the public.

[tritsofme]

20. The best antidote for the fears you present are the national elections we hold every two years.

Filburn appears to give Congress broad power to regulate commerce, if they choose to, and if voters are in agreement.

[closeupready]

15. You overestimate the American voter, lol.

:rofl: :D

[bvar22]

6. Thats easy.

A law MANDATING Profits for the giant Health Insurance Industry is an easy WIN for the Corporate dominated Supreme Court.

Low, Fairness, Precedent.... and all that other quaint bullshit no longer has anything to do with it.

[unblock]

9. they could have easily done it through the tax code, it would be completely constitutional then

the tax code has long had many "incentives" that amount to the same thing. you pay more taxes if you don't do whatever it is, and you pay less or even get a credit if you do. the latest is the home energy efficiency stuff.

yes, it's made to sound like you pay normal taxes if you don't buy the magic goodies and pay less if you do, but at the end of the day, that's really the same thing as calling the "normal" thing the lower amount and saying if you DO buy the magic goodies you pay the normal taxes and a HIGHER amount if you don't.

same thing, different spin.


my understanding is that the senate bill doesn't paper it up this way, but if the existing way were deemed unconstitutional, this would be an easy fix.

[girl gone mad]

10. Here is one respected Constitutional scholar's opinion

"Are health insurance mandates constitutional? They are certainly unprecedented. The federal government does not ordinarily require Americans to purchase particular goods or services from private parties. The closest we come is when government imposes a condition on the grant of discretionary benefit or permit. For instance, in most states, you must have auto insurance to drive a car, or you are required to install fire sprinklers when building a new house. But in such cases, the "mandate" is discretionary – you don't have to drive a car or build a house. Nor do you have a constitutional right to do so.

But Americans do have a constitutional right to live in the United States. Accordingly, neither federal nor state governments can require you to purchase health insurance as a "condition" for residency. The Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between requirements that are flat-out imposed by government and those imposed as a condition for discretionary benefits... "unfunded mandates" are unlike any form of government regulation we've seen.

(snip)

In fact, under the law, there's a big difference between participation in a government health program funded by taxes and privatizing such a program, with individuals forced to purchase private health insurance.

Taxation involves representation, as when Congress appropriates money and controls a government program for the general welfare. This describes Social Security and Medicare. But government cannot simply delegate its taxing powers to private business.

What representation do we have in the insurance firms whose products we would be required to buy, at prices and terms they set? Can we vote out an insurer's board of directors for denying claims or paying its CEO a multimillion-dollar salary? Here, too, the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between taxes imposed by government and mandatory fees set by entities with private interests.

A health insurance mandate is essentially a forced contract, in which one party (the insurer) gets to set the terms. You must buy their policies, even if you prefer to self-insure, rely on alternative medicine, or obtain treatment outside the system. In constitutional terms, such mandates may constitute a violation of due process or a "taking of property."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0326/p09s01-coop.html">more...

[Sebastian Doyle]

13. If it helps corporations, Opie Roberts is all for it.

That is the reason Chimp appointed his absurdly unqualified ass to the job in the first place.

As usual, it will come down to Kennedy's vote. And if he wouldn't take a stand against out of control corporate fascism in the Citizens United case, he's not likely to side with the American people over Big Insurance either.

[yodoobo]

18. The Supreme court will uphold it

Step 1. People will not be required to buy insurance. It will be voluntary.

Step 2. People who do not buy insurance will be subject to taxes. We'll call them fines. But legally they will be a tax.

Step 3. The Supreme court has LONG held that taxes are perfectly constitutional.


There is precedent for this sort of thing. Filing the IRS 1040 is technically a voluntary act as well.

Its quite possible that the SC court will not even hear the case because there is plenty of precedent.