"It's unconstitutional to require people to buy insurance."

[Catshrink]

That was a statement in a LTTE in our morning paper. My questions to her:

Are you aware that you are required to have auto insurance in our state?
Do you have auto insurance?
If you claim requiring you to have insurance is unconstitutional, why do you have auto insurance?
How many times have you used your auto insurance in the past two years?
How many times have you seen a doctor or used your medical insurance in the past two years?
Which is really more important here - protecting your car or the health of your family?

On edit: To clarify. I was looking for a way to respond to this statement in the LTTE and attempted to compare buying health insurance to auto insurance. Maybe I'm naive, but certainly not intending to parrot RW talking points. Sheesh.

[RB TexLa]

1. You only have to buy auto insurance if you want to register an automobile

[FrenchieCat]

55. And you only have to health insurance if you're breathing.....

and want to live in this society.

Same difference.

If one doesn't want coverage, they can move.

[Toasterlad]

76. America - Love It Or Leave It!

Do you have any shirts NOT colored brown?

[demwing]

79. Wow, that was incredibly callous.

I often find myself disagreeing with you, but this is the first time I ever thought you were acting dishonorably.

[LibDemAlways]

106. Agreed. Lots of arrogance there. It's ok, though. Let her have her

moment. She'll be humbled by the outcome of the midterms in Nov. or perhaps before when Obama's ratings sink into oblivion as a result of this fiasco.

[WeekendWarrior]

176. I'm predicting a wonderful outcome

for the Dems in November, when voters realize that what they witness yesterday is something that, by and large, will HELP them, despite what the Teabaggers and disenchanted idealists try to tell them.

This is a beginning and most people will realize that by November. And expect Obama's numbers to soar.

As I said in another thread, how about if we accept that this is a start rather than an end and work together to make this moment even better? Rather than go negative, how about if we look at the positive and build on it?

[LibDemAlways]

181. Sorry, but I see very little positive in mandating people to buy

overpriced private insurance or face a fine. I would have been ok with a mandate if people had been given a public option along with some cost controls, but this is just a big gift to the insurance companies at the expense of the American people.

[WeekendWarrior]

183. Well, since most of the people affected by that mandate

will be seeing a benefit from it (most of the rest already have insurance), and those who can't afford it will have an exemption from it, I don't see it as being negative. The dems will do fine in November. No matter what the bill is, they've made history and they've FINALLY shown some spine -- and that kind of stuff thrills the independents and brings the base out. We're looking good right now.

[proud2BlibKansan]

173. +1

[girl gone mad]

90. No, it's not the "same difference".

You can't honestly be that naive.

[Orsino]

153. To apply the anology more coherently...

...if one doesn't want health insurance, one can simply die.

[girl gone mad]

163. Yes, it's a shame to hear such ignorant statements..

coming from Democrats.

Sigh.

[roody]

92. I plan to move to a country that cares for its citizens.

[elias49]

bye

:-)

[Marr]

132. Obama's fan club is sounding more and more like GW's old fan club.

We're already at 'love it or leave it'? I think you need to pace yourself. You've got at least three years of deflecting to go.

[LaydeeBug]

140. you don't HAVE to own a car, there is a PUBLIC OPTION, and therefore... oh you know the rest..

shame you only saw this light now, and not when it was Obama decrying the mandate. Then mandates were HORRIBLE.

Mmmm-Hmmmm

[WeekendWarrior]

177. And as I've said,

that public option is not a reality or even a consideration for most people where I live. It's own and drive a car or starve. So I abide by the mandate and the world hasn't come to an end.

And no, I don't want to move. Anymore than most of us want to move out of the US to avoid the health insurance mandate.

[RandomThoughts]

184. I disagree with that also.

Same thing was said during Bush years about many things. Saying take it or leave it is not acceptable.

My response back then was that I would run them out, not that I would leave.


And the difference is that I can choose to not drive a car, the legislation in its current form makes someone unwilling to accept any corporate governance or corporate tax a criminal.

Again I agree with the good parts of the legislation, but will not pay a mandated tax to a corporate entity, nor a fine from not paying that tax.

[LostInAnomie]

179. Or hold a job in any city that doesn't have a mass-transit system.

[EFerrari]

2. The difference is you can choose not to have a car.

[cali]

84. in reality, a great many people cannot simply

choose not to have a car.

[Zynx]

91. As a practical matter, no you really can't in most cases.

[Edweird]

3. Really? This late in the game you don't undertand the difference between health and auto insurance?

[treestar]

8. The issue is the same

Whether the state or fed govt. can require you to buy anything.

Since people can be "forced" into Medicaid/Social Security, that issue has probably been resolved.

No one who has advocated this has ever cited any case precedent, though.

[The Straight Story]

14. Not the same: In one case you buy something because you exist, in the other case

You have to buy something because of a choice you made.

[derby378]

57. +100 (n/t)

[treestar]

69. But what is the jurisprudence on it?

The courts and the SCOTUS will be going on about interstate commerce and rational basis.

[The Straight Story]

80. Does it matter? The SCOTUS votes based on party anymore anyway :) (nt)

[treestar]

105. Yeah they'll have to write opinions citing legal precedent.

they aren't a legislature. Their "votes" are not the same thing. They have to cite their legal rationale.

[Uncle Joe]

180. Citing precedent means nothing to this Republican dominated Supreme Court.

The idea of corporate person-hood was based on false precedent.

Bush vs Gore was a decision based on one sided cold political calculation.

Precedent is a great thing for them to have if it's in line with what they already believe.

[Art_from_Ark]

167. It's more than that

Auto insurance is mostly liability insurance, that is, it is mainly designed to provide compensation for victims of automobile accidents-- too many people were being hit by uninsured drivers, and having to pay for repairs, etc., out of their own pocket.

[stillwaiting]

192. + infinity. Why do so many have a problem understanding this?

[Uncle Joe]

18. So the state can require us to buy tomatoes?

"The issue is the same

Whether the state or fed govt. can require you to buy anything."

[Karmadillo]

36. Kneel, serf!

nt

[treestar]

72. The legal issue is the same

If it were impossible for the government to require you to buy anything, the auto insurance requirement could have been defeated. Even though states required them, they could be challenged to the SCOTUS in the federal system.

The Administration and Congresspersons would know that, too.

As to a requirement to buy tomatoes, if it came to that, there is no guarantee it could not be upheld, though I'd doubt it.

[Edweird]

22. Hardly. Driving is a privilege. Living is not.

[treestar]

75. But the legal issue would be does the federal government have this power

or not, and if Social Security and Medicaid still survive, there must at least be an issue under the case law.

[Edweird]

85. It's unrelated. Driving is a privilege. You have to meet certain requirements

to be allowed to drive. BTW, insurance is optional if you have enough money. If you have the money to put up bond, you can drive self-insured (I think any private individual doing that is an idiot, tho). One multinational corporation I worked for did just that. That is completely unrelated to 'health' insurance. You have a choice whether or not to drive. You do not have a choice whether or not to live. Suicide is illegal. Social security and medicare are taxes. You are not required to use the services, but you ARE required to pay taxes. Any debate over the legality of taxes falls squarely in RW/libertarian/timothy McVeigh batshit crazy land.

[treestar]

102. Whoever is defending this health plan will argue it is a tax

But it's like SS and medicare, who would refuse it, except the batshit libertarians.

[msanthrope]

112. It is a tax--an excise tax. n/t

[Edweird]

123. I'm betting that won't fly. Buying a product from a private company is not a 'tax'.

[msanthrope]

125. You don't have to buy a product. You can, if you wish.

If you don't, you will be levied an excise tax.

You will pay for your choice not to enter the risk pool.

Do the math, and pick which is cheaper for you.

[Edweird]

127. No, it's a 'fine', not an 'excise tax'.

[msanthrope]

128. No--it is an excise tax levied on those who refuse to join the

risk pool and lower the rates for everyone. And it is clearly stated that way.


If one chooses to 'go Galt,' one may.

[Edweird]

141. OK. if they are calling it a 'tax', then it's a tax.

The rest, I'm sure, will be decided in court.

[Edweird]

154. Off topic

Are you the metal dj?

[msanthrope]

161. The what? n/t

[Edweird]

175. That's a 'no', LOL. Somebody on internet radio uses the same name as you.

[Leopolds Ghost]

195. Interesting, misanthrope. So you're confirming the meme that uninsured not buying in is the problem.

You bought into the lie about what's wrong with health care in the US. The anti-liberal meme.

[npk]

86. Very wrong

The reason you are required by law to buy auto insurance is because other people and property are put at risk when you drive, should you have an accident your actions could affect the lives of other people. Nobody is affected by YOU not having health insurance.

[patrick t. cakes]

89. not true. if you dont have ins. and you need immediate care

via the emergency room, taxpayers are paying for that.

[npk]

93. True, but...

You are assuming that a person will under every circumstance choose to go to an emergency room. You must also assume that every person that chooses not to buy insurance will not pay for their own health care out of pocket. There are some people, all though not many, that don't have health insurance because they pay for only when they need medical care.

[Leopolds Ghost]

196. And YOU HCR BUFFS ARE OPPOSED TO SOCIALIZED EMERGENCY ROOM CARE. You think it's hurting you.

Socialized hospital care existed before any other social services existed, before the Government existed. You want to end it.

[msanthrope]

107. Not true--taking yourself out of the risk pool affects health care rates

for all, which is precisely why the Congress can regulate it.

Read the Wickard case--or the Wiki version of it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

197. You mean it affects health care rates for the affluent who already have good plans.

And you are opposed to 1,000 years of socialized emergency room care, AKA refusal to not treat people.

[eridani]

165. Not the same at all. Medicare/SS is a tax for which you get a defined benefit

Mandated Mafia payoffs to private corporatiosn who are not required to give you shit are different. The government has no business being an enforcer for useless mass-murdering intermediaries.

[kirby]

4. There is not a mandate in this bill...

It is voluntary. Read the bill, it clearly states that the 'mandate' shall not be enforced either criminally or civilly (by IRS lein or sanction).

(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.— In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

[tigereye]

28. thanks for the clarification!

I was unsure about that.

:hi:

[sabrina 1]

152. It isn't voluntary.

The language uses the word 'criminal' but civil penalties are not excluded nor is what that might to lead should a person fail to pay after those civil penalties remain outstanding. The IRS is involved in the collection and the question is whether they can apply IRS rules to the collection of outstanding civil penalties.

The Senate Bill, no doubt after the outrage of the possibility of jail time, inserted the language you posted to avoid sending people to jail for not buying premiums they cannot afford. What the government, the IRS CAN do, is to deduct the fines from tax returns and using other avenues of collection, they hope to be able to get their Private Insurance protection money without causing any further justifiable outrage over this.

However, it is not at all clear that people will not end up in jail anyhow:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/

In the Senate, the Finance Committee’s health care bill was amended to nullify the possibility of jail time for not paying the penalty tax. It stipulates that in the case of nonpayment, "such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." Instead, the Senate measure would allow the government to collect the tax by deducting it from any IRS tax-refund checks or other government payments. Should the full Senate approve that language, a House-Senate conference committee would have to wrestle with the question of whether or not a person who refuses to obtain coverage and refuses to pay the penalty can be charged with criminal tax evasion.

It's what is NOT in the bill, commonly known as a 'loophole' that is the problem.

[berni_mccoy]

5. I knew DUers would continue to use RW Talking Points. Desperate to Kill The Bill.

[Fumesucker]

13. What RW talking points are you referring to?

That one only has to have car insurance if you plan on driving your car on public roads?

[berni_mccoy]

19. HCR IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

[Fumesucker]

26. Private mandates may well be unconstitutional..

There is no way of knowing how the SCOTUS will rule..

Now single payer wouldn't have had that problem, taxes are well known to be Constitutional.

[berni_mccoy]

71. Like FICA?

[Fumesucker]

95. No, not quite..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax

The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax is a United States payroll (or employment) tax imposed by the federal government on both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare.

[msanthrope]

126. That's what this is--an excise tax.

You can buy, or not. If you don't join the risk pool, you are levied a 2.5% excise tax.

That's why it's constitutional.

[hansberrym]

160. An excise tax on what? n/t

[sabrina 1]

97. Since mandated insurance is a Republican idea

it was Democrats who called it unconstitutional when Romney Care was being pushed by Republican.

How quickly we forget.

The forced purchase of a product from a private corporation has never been done before in this or any other modern democracy.

It will be challenged in court by people from across the political spectrum and should be.

The difference in Democrats who will challenge it is that they are consistent, and doing it for the right reasons. We cannot tolerate these constant attacks on individual rights.

The Rightwing is simply being their usual hypocritical selves and I doubt they will actually do it.

Libertarians are far more likely to challenge it, which is at least being consistent.

[elliptic]

139. mandatory health insurance

Germany voted for such a law a few years ago and it went
effective last year.

In case you have now a private insurance in Germany and you
cannot pay the insurance premiums anymore your are not allowed
to cancel the insurance. The goverment will pay only a little
for you which is not enough. So you are getting bancrupt (not
really, this is difficult in Germany, you will have to pay
forever).

If this is constitutional is not yet decided. Anyhow,
obviously it isn't. 

It is forbidden not to have an insurance, but there are no
sanctions if you have not  and some courts decided already any
extra penalty by the states would be probably
unconstitutional. The public health insurance in Germany works
only for 80%-90% of the population and if for some random
reason in the past you are not in the system you cannot go
back and must buy now private insurance or ignore the law.

[Leopolds Ghost]

199. elliptic, welcome to DU, are you from Germany? Thanks for the info. Can you tell us...

... was this law designed to phase out (slowly lessen the number of people on) public health insurance, or is it intended as a sanction on people who try to avoid being part of the public health insurance because they want premium private care, so the gov't says "you want gold plated insurance, you have to keep it, you can't come back"?

[EFerrari]

15. Slandering posters to DU does not forward your position.

In fact, it undermines your cred, bernie.

[Catshrink]

27. Not the intention.

Nice try.

[Edweird]

59. At least Newt can count on you to catapult the propaganda.

[Marr]

137. Oh, I know. DU is too messy.

Try this:

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/barack-obama

[Morning Dew]

6. Good grief.

[Kurt Remarque]

7. i buy future medicare in every paycheck

[eridani]

166. Yep. So why can't we buy future Medicare for All in our paychecks? n/t

[Fumesucker]

9. This has been argued many, many times here on GD..

And the differences between auto insurance mandates and health insurance mandates have been pointed out every single time.

[Orrex]

78. Exactly! The main difference is that you can't exist in about 95% of the country without a car.

At least, you can't expect to hold a sustainable job, or buy clothes, or get your medication without one, to name just a few of the fun little facts of life that make car ownership truly "optional."


Pro-bike arguments are charming and quaint and relevant to the other 5%, I suppose. But let's see a single mother of three living in a rural area do her grocery shopping in the rain on a bike.

[Lifelong Protester]

10. It's unconstitutional to get us into an illegal war then try to hide

the payouts for it off the books, but I guess all the marooons getting up in opposition to this 'flawed' bill on the 'unconstitutional' grounds don't want to cast their memories back that long.

[flvegan]

11. Different kinds of insurance.

Your automobile can be a liability to other drivers, you, your lender (if you have a loan) that needs to be insured.

If you buy a house and take out a mortgage to do so, 99.99999% of the time title insurance will be required to be purchased.

[dixiegrrrrl]

61. CAr insurance is mandatory even if you have no lien on the car, my dear.

Title insurance is not mandatory here, but house insurance is required by the lender.
Altho even if the house were paid off, I would insure the house since we live in hurricane/tornado area.

[flvegan]

68. Didn't say it wasn't.

I stated that a lender (if there were one) would have a liability as would the others I listed.

As for title insurance not being mandatory, I don't know a single lender on a purchase money mortgage that doesn't require it.

Anyone that doesn't insure their home, is an idiot, regardless of lien.

[Fleshdancer]

12. but you're not forced to own a car....

The government forcing citizens to pay for a service from a for profit corporation is questionable.

Like many liberals, I'm holding my nose while hoping this bill passes but I do think the question over whether it is constitutional is a valid one.


ON EDIT:
After reading other responses to this thread, it appears this won't penalize people for not having insurance so that's good.

[paulsby]

16. i've seen excellent legal analysis on this issue

but unfortunately, NOT here.
try scotusblog or volokh.com

it's certain that this is a con-law issue, and whether or not one is for or against the concept of mandatory insurance etc. it is clear that whether it is in fact constitutional (i have no idea personally, i am still wading through all the con law analysis) is entirely tangential to whether one is right or left wing, or for or against this bill

[Ikonoklast]

29. No one will be forced to buy health insurance.

You do not have to, if that is your wish.

But the federal government will fine you if you don't.

Your choice to make.

[Fleshdancer]

34. The fine thing confuses me....

So you will be fined but not punished if you don't pay?

[msanthrope]

111. You pay an excise tax for failure to join the risk pool. n/t

[Fleshdancer]

130. Thanks for the info. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

38. to call that pure sophistry would be loaning it a level of sophistication it doesn't deserve

[Ikonoklast]

42. Yet it is truth.

And if you think the current SC will go against their already pro-corporate uber alles bent and rule against this, I have a bridge to sell you.

[paulsby]

44. that's irrelevant. your argument about choice is what is silly

i have a CHOICE to break any law.

i can CHOOSE to break the law against murder.
and the govt.l will punish me if i do.

nobody would rationally argue that the govt. gives people a choice to commit murder

the govt. prohibits murder.

[paulsby]

41. you don't have to pay taxes either

but if you have reportable income and a tax burden, and don't, they'll fine you and or imprison you.

you don't have to abide by rules against murder either.

but if you don't, the govt (most often the local govt.) will hold you accountable and imprison you, after trial.

your choice

(do you see the hole in your "logic?")

choice, wherein your choice results in govt. action against you, at the barrel of a gun so to speak, is hardly CHOICE

hth

[kenny blankenship]

46. Logic only works on some people, I'm finding out.

Likewise the definitions of very distinct almost opposed words are completely interchangeable to some of the same folks. It's a bit disorienting.

[Ikonoklast]

54. You will have a choice.

Buy insurance, or pay the fine.

No criminality will be involved for either action.

The government will not care which action you choose to make. It will be totally your decision.

I am fairly certain that there wil be some people that would rather pay the fine, than purchase insurance, as it just may be in their best economic interests to do so.

[dixiegrrrrl]

65. why would I choose to pay a fine if it is not enforced???

[Ikonoklast]

70. Payment will be enforced by the IRS.

The act of choosing not to buy mandated insurance will not be deemed a criminal act.

[ubergeek]

138. The IRS is your friend!

The IRS handling enforcment of this is - disturbing. Not the nicest folks on the planet. Grrrrrr
Some of the Bill has merit, but a lot of it is pure crap.

[paulsby]

96. so, if there is ONLY a fine, then it's like a civil infraction

such as speeding (or littering in many jurisdictions)

what happens if you don't pay the fine? does the govt. go "oh well. nevermind, cheddar"?

[msanthrope]

117. The IRS gets to collect the federal excise tax you refuse to pay. n/t

[paulsby]

131. and if you refuse the IRS, we all know what happens

you have No choice we could agree. unless one of your choices is "go to jail" at the barrel of a gun

[msanthrope]

136. You have the same choice you have with federal income taxes.

Don't like it? Go off the grid and go Galt. Don't use paved roads, municipal water, hospitals..etc...

[paulsby]

143. and others would agree

(those who aren;t engaging in sophistry 101), that you don't have a CHOICE to pay taxes.

which is my point.

nor, if you are fined, and imprisoned if you don't pay the fine, do you have a CHOICE in not paying for the insurance/fine thang.

hth

[Ikonoklast]

81. Actually, it *is* a criminal act not to pay taxes.

Whether or not you choose to pay is irrelevant; it is still a crime to not pay your taxes.

It will not be deemed a criminal act not to buy health insurance.


Logic fail on your part.

[paulsby]

98. it's not a logic fail. both acts ARE PROHIBITED by govt.

the difference is that one has civil penalties, the other has criminal (and civil) penalties.

in neither case does the govt. allow a "choice"

[msanthrope]

119. Not true--you don't have to buy healthcare, but you have to pay the

excise tax.

There's no 'penalty' for not having healthcare. But you will be levied an excise tax for failure to contribute to the risk pool.

[paulsby]

129. so, the relevant question becomes...;

what happens if you don't pay the "excise tax"

[msanthrope]

134. The IRS comes and gets you. And you get to negotiate with them. n/t

[paulsby]

144. iow, there is no more choice involved

than one has vis a vis taxes.

choice at the barrel of a gun is not choice.

[msanthrope]

147. You have a choice not to pay taxes, Paulsby--

you can leave the US, or take the consequences.

Pay your share, and quit bitchin'.

[paulsby]

148. way to evade the issue

the POINT is that i do not have a CHOICE to pay taxes, which is analogized to the prior claim that one has a CHOICE not to get the mandatory insurance. the explanation (lol) offered was that one HAD a choice, because one would merely get a fine if one refused, and of course if one refuses to pay the fine, one goes to jail.
that's not a CHOICE, just like taxes.

if by refusing to do X, the govt. can fine me, and if i refuse to pay the fine, imprison me, no logical person (NOT ENGAGED IN SOPHISTRY) would argue the citizen has choice

this is DISanalogous to (for example) an insurance on vehicle issue, where nobody is forced to get insurance UNLESS they choose to engage in a PRIVILEGE, to wit - driving on a public roadway


hth

[metalbot]

194. Actually, not paying your taxes is NOT a criminal offense

Not filing a tax return is a criminal offense. Lying on your tax return is a criminal offense.

However, not paying your taxes is NOT a criminal offense. It's a civil offense, and the government will go after your money, garnish wages, place leins on property, etc. But they cannot jail you for simply not paying taxes (as long as you have filed honestly on your return). When you hear about people going to jail for "not paying taxes", you'll find that they've either refused to file or they've lied on their returns.

So the language in the bill that says "there shall be no criminal penalty" for not paying the excise tax is no different than income taxes today. There is a line in the bill that says they can't seize property to make you pay the tax, but they can certainly garnish wages.

[misanthrope]

88. I guess that would depend on who donated to the judge's campaign...

...and how much they gave as to how "justice" rules.

[Oregone]

17. You are using a public roadway. Its a licensing issue.

Everyone needs to be liable to the danger they cause to others (only liability is compulsory). And again, not everyone has to drive.


your body is not a one ton weapon

[optimator]

20. so now the Left loves private insurance vampires

where the fuck am i to go...

[LibDemAlways]

108. Feel the same way. So many here have been willing to abandon

Democratic Party principles in order to claim a political "win." It's incredibly short-sighted and will lead to a bloodbath in November.

[Bluerthanblue]

21. what about FICA?

:shrug:

[Peacetrain]

25. Bingo... an op on that would be great

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax

[Bluerthanblue]

31. please do! I'm pitiful

at posting clear messages.

You are quite good at it :hi:

Thanks!

[kenny blankenship]

35. The proposed mandate applies to EVERYONE and it requires you to buy a service from a private party

Not at all the same.

This would make purchase of a service from a private party (a longstanding cartel but that's another can of worms) a CONDITION OF RESIDENCY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.

Never. Before.

You know why? Because the closest thing to this in historical tradition of our country's government is the grant of a monopoly by royal authority. I say "royal" because such abuses were loathed so much by the founding fathers that no one has successfully put one over on the American people since 1787, until now.

[Peacetrain]

39. FICA also has private party provisions...where you have to contribute to a private company

http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2008/07/21/story9.html

[kenny blankenship]

43. Do you know the difference between "allow" and "require"?

[Peacetrain]

47. Is FICA a mandate?

[kenny blankenship]

48. FICA does not REQUIRE everyone to purchase a service from a private party. If you say

so again, you are lying.

[Peacetrain]

50. Is FICA a mandate?

[kenny blankenship]

51. No one ever disputed that. Your retreat into absurdity is all the concession I require.

See now what playing stupid gets you?

[Peacetrain]

53. FICA alternatives can be run by private companies.. yes or no?

[kenny blankenship]

56. You are not mandated to pay them anything You are ALLOWED to pay them if you wish

Now you are back to pretending not to know the difference between ALLOW and REQUIRE.

[Peacetrain]

62. So whether you have the option to stay govermental or go private if your workplace has it

the money taken out is still mandated.. yes or no?

[kenny blankenship]

122. Your hiding in your pretended ignorance of simple terms is conclusive and puts a natural end on this

You stuck to your childish denial that there's any difference between being "ALLOWED" and being "REQUIRED" - which the essence of being mandated to do something. Do you think people will believe you really don't know that these 2 words are different and contrary in meaning? I don't buy the cutesy dumb act and nobody else should either.

Trying to play dumb and pretend that the mandatory nature of FICA somehow magically TRANSFERS to a subsequent voluntary decision to direct some part of your mandated withholding to a private party will get you nowhere. The existing mandate on workers to pay a withholding tax has no power over their choice to send some or none of it to a private party.

You are not mandated by the government to direct your FICA withholdings to a private party. Period. Furthermore you are not mandated by the government to take any particular job where you might be even be asked to do so. You are not mandated by the govt in the first place to take any job. If you do direct some fraction of your FICA to a private party, that is solely the outcome of YOUR CHOICE, a whole series of them in fact, and not a mandated purchase which you were forced to make.

By contrast, adults in America will soon be mandated -required under penalty of law- to purchase a private insurance service, since there is no public offering allowed to compete as yet. Unless they can obtain a waiver from the government for reasons of indigence they must prove they have paid up. They cannot choose to be either too old or too young to be obliged to pay. When they pay, all of it goes to private insurance. There's no allowance to direct some of your payment to a public entity. Thus the direction of where 100% of your money goes is 100% compelled by the law into private hands. It's likewise at the government's absolute discretion whether to relieve you from their obligation if you claim hardship, and not your choice at all. Unlike FICA withholdings that you might optionally send to a private party, you have no choice in any of this.

And this falls on not some people, but EVERYONE. It falls on them not as a condition or consequence of some voluntary activity, like FICA, but as a purely arbitrary and compulsory matter. To spell it out fully, everyone simply as a "condition of being allowed to live" in the United States, will be subject to this mandate. Until death or statutory enfeeblement releases them.

There is no possible equivalence to FICA's allowance for individuals to direct a portion of their withholding to a private party if they want. That case is the result of multiple, voluntary and reversible decisions made by individuals. The present case of a government imposed mandate is wholly arbitrary, and compulsory, and not reversible. Or perhaps you are about to tell us all now that death, old age, and jail are all viable choices for Americans.

You like to confuse words like a winger, but that's why we have dictionaries.

[The Straight Story]

58. ONLY if you work - what about homemakers and such??? (nt)

[kenny blankenship]

63. this poster you're talking to doesn't understand English or pretends not to. Lots of luck

[Peacetrain]

74. No you are the one who does not seem to be able to follow the gist of a post.

The OP was about buying insurance in the title.
"It's unconstitutional to require people to buy insurance." that was in a letter in the OP's newspaper..

Another poster brought up FICA.. which is a federal mandate to buy insurance.

Then you said it has never happened before where a federal mandate was used to buy from a private company.

I left a link to show where a company (in this case a university) can offer a FICA alternative to a private company.. other wise the money will still be taken out for traditional FICA.

The money is coming out. It can be governmental or in some cases a private alternative.. But the FICA funds are coming out.

[girl gone mad]

99. There have always been opt-outs..

and that's the difference here. Do you honestly not understand that?

This bill does not give anyone and option outside of being required, by penalty of law, to pay for private health insurance.

[Peacetrain]

100. I absolutely understand that.. read the whole line of posts..

Another poster and I were talking oranges about having to purchase insurance.. you do if you are paying FICA taxes.. in relation to what the original OP was talking about in a letter in the newspaper.. Another poster proposed I was talking apples..

[underpants]

45. Oh but that is insura..... oh

Great point

having been in a news (an actual news void) for the last few weeks I would assume that not one of the pretty people on the TV have mentioned that

oh and there is that pesky commerce clause

The Commerce Clause is a grant of power to Congress, not an express limitation on the power of the states to regulate the economy. At least four possible interpretations of the Commerce Clause have been proposed. First, it has been suggested that the Clause gives Congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce. Under this interpretation, states are divested of all power to regulate interstate commerce. Second, it has been suggested that the Clause gives Congress and the states concurrent power to regulate commerce. Under this view, state regulation of commerce is invalid only when it is preempted by federal law. Third, it has been suggested that the Clause assumes that Congress and the states each have their own mutually exclusive zones of regulatory power. Under this interpretation, it becomes the job of the courts to determine whether one sovereign has invaded the exclusive regulatory zone of the other. Finally, it has been suggested that the Clause by its own force divests states of the power to regulate commerce in certain ways, but the states and Congress retain concurrent power to regulate commerce in many other ways. This fourth interpretation, a complicated hybrid of two others, turns out to be the approach taken by the Court in its decisions interpreting the Commerce Clause.
Justice Curtis, in Cooley v Board of Wardens (1851) outlines the case for recognizing, as a constitutional matter, zones of exclusive federal authority over commerce and other zones of concurrent state and federal authority. Cooley, upholding a Pennsylvania law requiring that vessels entering Philadelphia harbor use of local pilots, applies a balancing test to judge the validity of the regulation.

Baldwin v G. A. F. Seelig (1935) invalidated a New York law prohibiting the sale in the state of milk bought outside of New York. New York argued the law was necessary to avoid price competition that would drive dairies into producing less wholesome milk. The Court, more realistically, saw the law as protectionist. Justice Cardozo wrote that when "a state tries to isolate itself economically" it must show an important interest for doing so and that it had no less discriminatory mean open for accomplishing its goal. Cardozo's test has become the standard test for evaluating state laws that discriminate against out-of-state commerce.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

[Gravel Democrat]

23. Auto insurance = State mandates. When in 235 yrs has the Fed mandated a purchase?

Precedent? You bet. Slippery slope? Yup

So you won't mind when the next R administration
mandates you buy a shotgun for safety and rams
it through congress with an overall 35% approval.

Of course you won't.

When you realize how this Admin rationalizes this
mandate you might question it. Or, not. But since
this was skillfully kept from any kind of discussion
many many people have no idea that they base it
on the Commerce Clause.

Yet.

[kenny blankenship]

32. According the CBO - never before.

That's a finding of a CBO report from the Clinton Health Care Debacle.

[msanthrope]

124. How is an excise tax a mandate of purchase? You still haven't explained that.

You don't have to buy health insurance.

You will be charged an excise tax if you fail to join the risk pool.

It's simple--do the math and see which is cheaper to you.

[Leopolds Ghost]

198. In Switzerland, they already mandate gun ownership and several jurisdictions in US have tried it.

So-called progressives who support the HCR were opposed to that not on legal grounds (they supported Kelo case allowing the gov't to sieze property in blighted neighborhoods for private gentrification), but merely cultural; it wasn't their thing.

[dems_rightnow]

24. Auto Insurance is mandated by individual states

There is no federal mandate to buy automobile insurance. Big difference.

[New Dawn]

83. In addition, we are not required to own cars.

The Individual Mandate forces all adults to buy "health" insurance from private, for-profit insurance conglomerates.

[msanthrope]

133. No it doesn't--you do not have to buy health insurance.

You can fail to join the risk pool, and you can pay the excise tax.

[kenny blankenship]

30. It will make an interesting case and you better hope it is unconstitutional, my friend

Because if it isn't, you're going to find out that there's ALL KINDS OF STUFF YOU ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO BUY JUST TO LIVE OUTSIDE OF JAIL.

[girl gone mad]

101. Correct.

I am already preparing to fight this battle. I've got a top-notch Constitutional attorney (a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) lined up.

I won't be the only one, but for the reason you specify, I do intend to fight it all the way and I'm prepared to pay the price.

[northernlights]

33. you can choose not to have a car

that argument has gotten so effing old.

And you aren't required to insure the car itself against damage (unless you're financing it, in which case it's the financer's requirement). You are required to buy liability insurance in case you injure somebody else or damage their property.

It's to protect the rest of the world against your crappy driving.

[shockra]

37. I haven't seen any doctors in the last 2 years.

And I haven't had health insurance in nearly 25. I'm not interested in being forced to buy insurance for health. It's an unnecessary industry. Besides, Western Medicine is not health-oriented, it's disease-oriented. In general, you're better off staying away from doctors as much as possible.

I have experienced plenty of illness, including Celiac Disease, Chronic Lyme Disease, and mercury poisoning -- from having at least one layer of metal on every one of my teeth, due to my rapidly declining immune system causing them to go bad. I wouldn't have ever known any of these things were wrong if it hadn't been for changing my diet, which made the Celiac more obvious, and then an alternative physician diagnosing the Lyme.

I am much happier not "having" to see a doctor at least every month anymore, and managing my own health. The extra effort is much more than worth it.

[terrell9584]

40. The response

1. There is no state law requiring you to own a car as a precondition of living there. While it may be true that it is a functional necessity to have a car and therefore insurance there actually is no mandate on persons to have that insurance. You're only subject to it if you exercise your privilege of driving.

2. There is no mandatory federal car insurance law. There is also nothing in the constitution that prevents states from mandating you purchase a product. Therefore, through the 10th amendment and absent any state constitutional provisions prohibiting it states are free to impose a mandate.


Those are the two basic ones. This is a federal law. If you call it a tax you can only call it a capitation tax. Those are illegal. An area where it will also likely be held illegal is the subsidies. You mandate people participate but then you relieve the burden from some people while others have full burden. That's seperate and unequal and no court worth it's salt will uphold it or any kind of subsidized mandate where not everyone is subsidized


And the federal government has never required citizens to buy a private product or service. Never. This is unchartered territory and there are other constitutional rights it could violate, as it does constitute a government directed reallocation of private money mandatorily to a private interest. Also unprecedented.

[Pithlet]

49. I'd like to see an actual constitutional argument against it.

So far, I've only seen the argument that federal government has never mandated a purchase before. Well, just because it's never been done before doesn't mean it's automatically unconstitutional. Show me where in the constitution it says the government can't do it and why?

[Gravel Democrat]

73. Where in the Constitution

is the Federal Government given the power to Initiate commerce?

There is a difference b/w "Regulate" and "Initiate". Look up the words.

Either the Constitution is the law of the land or it is not. It defines the
powers of the Feds. It was written to be amended for a situation like this.

Find the wording that allows the Feds to initiate commerce or mandate purchases.

It's not there, hence it's not constitutional.

[Pithlet]

82. How is Congress initialing commerce?

The answer is they aren't. There is a tax. You may avoid that tax the way you avoid hundreds of other taxes by doing certain things. They call it a mandate, but it is structured as a tax.

[msanthrope]

110. The government isn't initiating commerce--it's instituting an excise tax.

You buy, or you get the excise tax.

Please explain to me how Congress does not have the power to regulate the economic activity of the health care industry---here's a hint---

Explain how this is more like morrison/lopez, and not raich/wickard.

[hansberrym]

146. An excise tax on what? Breathing? you drank to cool aid, and seems Congress will shortly n/t

[msanthrope]

151. An excise tax on failure to join the risk pool. You don't have to get healthcare

you know...you can just wait for all of us to pick up your tab.

[girl gone mad]

109. Here you go.

Just one of many:

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

Stepping out now, but if you want more, I can post them later.

[Pithlet]

113. This link was from primary season.

So, there's a lot of specious arguments in it. I can ignore it because the crux of the argument hinges on there being no opt out from the insurance purchase. There is an alternative to purchasing insurance in this bill. So therefore, his argument falls apart on its first premise and we don't even have to get into the rest of his mistakes.

[msanthrope]

115. Yeah--note how the article doesn't even reference the actual bill? n/t

[girl gone mad]

157. The arguments against mandates still apply.

The only alternative is criminal penalty, which is no alternative.

[msanthrope]

114. That's an amazingly bad article to cite--considering it was written before

either the House or Senate had passed an actual bill.

It doesn't critique either proposal with any specificity.

Do you have an article that explains why an excise tax is unconstititional?

[girl gone mad]

158. An "excise tax" for being born?

You guys are really sounding ridiculous.

[cmd]

52. My answer

I'm tired of paying for your health care. When you head into the ER, my insurance goes up. It's time to be responsible. That's the Democratic way of life.
If you don't want to play by the rules, head to somewhere that doesn't have health insurance. Enjoy life on the moon.

[The Straight Story]

60. So you think most people choose not to have it? (nt)

[Karmadillo]

66. And they better choose to buy a good job and a good education or it's off to the moon!!!!

Freeloaders!!!!

[derby378]

67. So forcing me to fatten a corporation's coffers is "responsibility?"

Bartender, pour!

[msanthrope]

116. Your refusal to join the risk pool carries an excise tax.

You can buy, or not. But if you don't, you get to pay more taxes, because you are raising my healthcare rates.

[derby378]

135. And that excise tax goes where, again?

Last I heard, it goes straight to those same insurance companies.

[msanthrope]

149. It goes into the Federal Treasury--as do all federal taxes. n/t

[misanthrope]

94. Unfortunately, the only insurance I can get is Medicare disability...

...and I have to stay impoverished to have it. You see, my pre-existing condition precludes coverage from for-profit insurance companies and that will continue under this new law. It will be cheaper for them to deny my coverage and pay the $36,500 yearly fine for doing so. In fact, they'll come out around $100,000 ahead for denying me coverage.

This legislation does absolutely nothing for me. And in the long run, it will do harm to a great number of folks as their premiums skyrocket while their coverage shrinks.

[Ikonoklast]

164. Lots of DUer's gettin' all Libertarian all of a sudden.

Funny dat.


"The Gubbamint ain't gonna tell ME what to do, durn them Soshalist bastids!"

[Leopolds Ghost]

200. It's called civil libertarianism.

You know, the same people opposed to fines on people who paint their houses pink or wear slogans on their shirts in malls. Because the argument there is a majoritarian, economic argument as well. Tyrrany of the majority who already have health insurance and think making it mandatory will lessen their premiums. What a foolish thing to imagine!

[eridani]

168. I'm tired of paying mass murederers to come between me and my doctor

I will exercise my responsibility for being in a universal risk pool by paying a tax to the government and having the government pay my provider, thankyewverymuch.

[Karmadillo]

64. I hope so.

nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

77. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP COMPARING THIS TO

AUTO INSURANCE...there is no fucking comparison! FER FUCK'S SAKE...JUST DAMN!

sP

[Crabby Appleton]

87. Although it is frequently claimed that states require the purchase

of auto insurance that's not precisely true - most states require have financial responsibility laws that have other methods to provide proof of financial responsibility such as surety bonds or deposit of a security with the state. Most people meet the requirement by purchasing insurance, but there are other ways to meet the requirement.

[LibDemAlways]

103. That will be up to the courts to decide. This bill will be the subject of

numerous court challenges and the judges will ultimately have the last say.

By the way, as inconvenient as it might be, I can choose not to own a car. I can't choose not to have a body, and whether or not I want to pay some crooked private insurance company to insure it should be my decision - not the government's.

[msanthrope]

121. You don't have to buy health insurance if you really don't want to.

Pay the excise tax.

and pay the medical bills when they come......

[terrell9584]

142. No.

Pay the penalty and then sign up for insurance right when you get sick. Best option. And have it withdrawn from your check via withholding so it won't hurt as much as the penalty at one time would.

[msanthrope]

145. How amazingly selfish----

Refuse to enter the risk pool and lower rates for us all--just expect someone else to clean up your mess.

[terrell9584]

156. Not really

Its that I dont get insurance from my employer and I've made the determination that I'd rather spend the cost of a private policy on graduate classes so I can get a better job with better benefits rather than to buy an insurance exec a new yacht.


And if you don't think that's not going to be what millions of Americans will do under this program you haven't really grasped the mindset of the American people.

[girl gone mad]

162. That's a right wing talking point.

There are millions of people who get good health care without insurance. Some can afford to pay out of pocket and are good at negotiating. Others get treatment outside of the country. Still others self-insure. Some simply do not want American medical care.

Is it really necessary to remind you that most of the medical bankruptcies in this country are filed by people with insurance? That will not end with the passage of this bill.

[eridani]

169. The selfish people are the apologists for mass murderers

We can all enter a GOVERNMENT risk pool. That would be fine by me.

[naaman fletcher]

104. Yeah but the car insurers pay..

If you are in a group health plan you are ok. If you are like me, you are screwed because if you get really sick they will just cancel your coverage.

[heppcatt]

118. If the SCOTUS determines the mandate unconstitutional .........

All the Congress will have to do is reword it. They will have to call the mandate a tax. Which of course is constitutional. But it will not end the future health reform law.

[msanthrope]

120. It's already called a tax--an excise tax of 2.5% levied on those who

will not join the risk pool.

[girl gone mad]

159. You mean for those who refuse to buy private insurance.

You can try to spin it however you like, but it's still a mandate to buy private insurance, with the force of fines and criminal penalties behind it.

[Dogmudgeon]

150. Yep.

I don't expect this to be around very long.

It will be replaced with a series of different mechanisms to cover as many people as possible, probably a Public Option.

--d!

[DietCoke111]

155. Your paper is freaking stupid

They have no idea what they are talking about

[Wizard777]

170. You don't have to put a car on the road. But how do I get around without my uninsured body?

This provision is no more legal than a law requiring everyone to buy an Xbox or cell phone. They haven't given us the public option the insurance companies feared. Instead they've given the insurance company something we've all feared. That's the ability to walk away from the negotiating table. Now insurance rates will be outrageously priced, super outrageously priced, and obscenely priced.

[Bucky]

187. Move to the internet

I know I saw someone do that on one episode of the X Files.

[Craftsman]

171. I am told over 30 state AG's are considering filing lawsuits against HCR

If any of them win it will be in large part due to forcing people to buy insurance.

[DailyGrind51]

172. Then it must be unconstitutional to set specific blood/alcohol levels for drivers!

[yawnmaster]

185. huh??? eom

[DailyGrind51]

190. "Government" can mandate a lot of "personal" decisions.

[Matariki]

174. That is a completely ingenuous and ignorant comparison. n/t

[Bucky]

178. The 12th Amendment: "the right of the people to avoid holding insurance shall not be infringed"

Oh wait, wrong reality. Nevermind.

 

[Statistical]

182. Close. You were off by 2

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Bucky]

186. Good point. Of course health insurance is interstate commerce, so it can be regulated.

[Statistical]

188. But is lack of insurance interstate commerce? That likely is something for courts to decide.

The courts will likely side with federal govt if Raich decision is any indicator
However as Clarence Thomas (I know he is hated but he was in the correct minority on this one) stated:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers

If the govt can regulate "non-commerce" under the guise of commerce clause then they have unlimited power. Anything and everything is subject to commerce clause and there is no restraint of federal power. The states exist in name only and the only thing keeping federal govt in check is the federal govt.

This cornerstone of our political process which has kept the Republic together for 200 years is being unraveled. The federal govt shouldn't have unlimited power.

[Bucky]

189. It sure is if you run a hospital.

[marshall]

191. Isn't that what they used to say about federal taxes?

That it's not in the Constitution? And yet most of us do pay taxes, and those who don't are hounded by the IRS until we do.

[Leopolds Ghost]

193. Do you have a drivers lic? Are you aware it's required to drive a car? Correlation w/ universal ID?

Slippery slope argument.

Constitutional or not, mercantilism is against Jefferson's revolution and as such, counter-Revolutionary, whether you're a liberal or a conservative.

What did Jefferson say about the American revolution and the durability of the Constitutional protections?