If the SCOTUS cites blah-blah-blah to overturn the Healthcare Act's individual mandate, how could that NOT invalidate a state's law to purchase insurance? The state's insurance mandate would inevitably violate the same constitutional clause(s), would it not?

you are NOT forced to insure yourself...you are forced to insure the other driver in case you fuck them up through poor driving or negligence...it is not the same fucking AT ALL!

god damn...

sP

If a state government compels you to purchase private auto insurance, how is that different than the federal government compelling someone to purchase private Health insurance?

Or a motorcycle helmet?

Or a rabies shot for your beagle?

Or hellfire missile for a war you don't support?

helmet laws...not federal...

rabies shot protects others...again, not federal

hellfire missile...you paid for the missile, you don't like the war? vote the fuckers running it out of office...

you really just keep missing...badly

sP

No state can violate the US constitution.

If the SCOTUS cites the constitution to strike down a federal law, it would strike down all state mandates for the same reason.

by your logic there would be no laws of any sort from the federal level...they are looking at very specific language in this law. and the mandate for auto insurance is protection for someone else and is only a requirement to DRIVE...but you won't get that...you'll say something else inane in just a minute...hell, you probably already have.

sP

you said something else inane...

go study...then come back...you just don't get it.

sP

That's all you've got?

i guess i should be sad really...

sP

there's no need for you to go off half-cocked just because you disagree. You sound like a conservative!

Sheesh. Your posts are all riddled with backalley language and they're all unprovoked.

Well explain to me the difference between federal and state laws and why one is more evil than the other? Why is a state mandating something more appropriate than the federal government mandating something to better the overall health care of its citizens?

The federal government does not have police powers in the same way. The power to regulate and to require this type of purchase is through the Commerce Clause of the constitution coupled with the necessary and proper clause.

Not the same thing.

you end up paying....

It is not as different as you suppose.

Last edited Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:09 PM - Edit history (1)

he could end up paying, too, since 1/3 of uncompensated care goes to people with insurance.

Also, many uninsured do end up paying their own bills. It's definitely not as black and white as you want to make it out to be.

When you are buying health insurance, you are also making sure that other insured people don't have to pay for your insurance. He may have a point.

No need to go ballistic because you disagree, unless, of course, you don't know how to debate civilly.

And that appears to be streaming out of his keyboard.

or it may deal with separation of powers.

The "blah-blah-blah" is where the action is, it cannot be cast off.

State mandates. Obamacare's mandate would be federal. I still think it's constitutional, but I've been thinking along the same lines as you, at least with the auto insurance angle. What if States pick up the mandate themselves, in order to make the exchanges and existing condition exemptions feasible? I often use the auto insurance example when explaining the ACA to the feeble-minded. Imagine if you could just go without auto insurance until an accident, then go plunk down your little premium payment after the accident, and get a new car! The individual mandate is what makes it possible for everyone to afford auto insurance.

No state can violate the US Constitution.

If the SCOTUS cites the constitution - and they will - to strike down the individual mandate for the federal Healthcare Act, how could it NOT apply to a state's mandate for insurance?

doesn't mean the states don't have that power. The Constitution grants the federal government certain powers. It also says the powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states and the people.

That no state law can violate the US constitution.

If the SCOTUS cites the constitution - and it will - to strike down the HCA's mandate, the same constitutional clauses would apply to a state's mandate.

Last edited Tue Jun 26, 2012, 10:08 AM - Edit history (1)

It explicitly says that states do have power that is not granted to the federal government.

"If the SCOTUS cites the constitution - and it will - to strike down the HCA's mandate, the same constitutional clauses would apply to a state's mandate."

That is 100% incorrect. The Constitution grants enumerated powers to the federal government. State powers are completely different than federal powers.

No state can strip First Amendment rights, for example.

If something is forbidden by the Constitution, then it is forbidden for state governments just as much as the federal government.

About the only way you could squeeze a state insurance mandate through while barring a federal mandate would be to claim that power was not granted to Congress by the Constitution, but also not forbidden by the Constitution. And that really doesn't make much sense given the other things Congress can do under the commerce clause.

The bill of rights limits what governments can do, but that is completely different than the powers that are granted to them in the Constitution. Just because the Constitution doesn't give the federal government power to do something doesn't mean the state cannot do it.

"About the only way you could squeeze a state insurance mandate through while barring a federal mandate would be to claim that power was not granted to Congress by the Constitution, but also not forbidden by the Constitution. And that really doesn't make much sense given the other things Congress can do under the commerce clause."

Actually it makes perfect sense. The federal government DOESN'T have the power to force people to buy insurance, and states AREN'T prohibited from forcing people to buy insurance. The argument they are making is beyond anything Congress has done under the commerce clause. They are arguing that not engaging in commerce IS commerce.

I'm glad you just learned about it. But even Wickard v. Filburn doesn't give the power to do what the mandate does. See my reply to you below.

You know there is something like Romneycare which in very similar to Obamacare in Massachusetts and the republicans cannot challenge its constitutionality. Do you know why? Its is a state mandate not a federal one. And no, its not because car insurance protects other drivers because states can mandate you to protect your self on the road ala helmet mandate for motorcyclist.

a Federal mandate is unconstitutional, it would be unconstitutional because it infringes on states rights. A ruling like that leaves the states open to create their own mandate (such as that in MA which is still in effect and has been for several years).

I wouldn't agree with such a ruling, but it's one that could be easily made.

However, since the mandate isn't really a mandate, it's kind of a moot argument. What it really is, is a tax credit for buying insurance. If you don't buy the insurance, you don't get the credit.

One thing that could happen as a result of striking down the so-called "mandate" is that a precedent for eliminating other tax incentives could be created. That could create some pretty major problems even conservatives wouldn't want to face in the future.

The challenge is to federal power to institute this type of mandate, not the states' power to do so.

For instance, there is no Federal sales tax on items - there are state sales taxes, decided at the state level.

There can be an additional excise tax that is mandated federally - however, the federal government cannot mandate minimum or maximum sales tax rates in individual states.

not this shit again...

how many times does this fucking argument need to be shot down here before people stop making it? it has been going on for a couple of years now...

sP

Apparently as often as it takes for everyone else to become as wise and knowledgable on the topic as you, sir.

before making such a ridiculous comparison...sir.


sP

Saying the comparison is ridiculous does not make it so.

Can you explain in constitutional terms your position? Or are you going to insist on insults as the sole basis for your theory?

you missed it or can't comprehend the differences between protect others and protecting yourself...

but hey...keep riding that horse...

sP

A mandate to purchase a product is a mandate to purchase a product. It doesn't matter if the product is for yourself or for someone else. If the Constituion is the basis for striking down the HCA mandate, why would state mandates be exempt?

by your logic there should be no fees or required payments for anything...

but hey...you're still whipping the hell out of that horse but I promise you it ain't going anywhere.

sP

If the mandate is struck down.

And you can't say what is wrong with my logic.

That's not my failure, sir.

you are 100% correct that it cannot be argued with...

sP

This form of mandate punishes inactivity in private, for profit commerce.

Auto insurance mandates do not dictate that your employer select coverage and you must pay for it, no forced sales from the company store.

Auto insurance mandates are only for those who freely elect to drive private vehicles on public roads. Drive a work vehicle? Mandate does not apply. Utilize public transportation? Mandate does not apply. Walk? Mandate does not apply.

Auto insurance mandates do not create separate but unequal status, this mandate will give certain citizens access to exchanges that most Americans are excluded from and hence they are forced to buy from the company store, if the company operates said store.

The "why" of how this specific form of mandate is ruled unconstitutional is important because the "why" is the issue and until that is outlined we can have no idea if it may arguably deal with state laws. Remember that we are not dealing with any and every mandate but this specific form. A ruling may kill this one and allow another even on the Federal level.

Public transportation is literally impossible to use in my town for commuting, because they only run the buses for 6 hours. Walking to work is also not possible, because zoning laws require housing to be far from commercial/industrial. Plus government refuses to provide sidewalks or roads sufficiently wide to walk safely.

Driving is only optional in very limited situations. For the vast majority, driving is not optional.

you're using logical fallacy and it really is showing badly for you.

sP

you said driver's insurance is for the protection of others - but my insurance also protects me against other drivers. And, the whole reason for the mandate was to protect insured people from those who refuse to buy insurance, that they wouldn't have to carry the load as we have been having to do when these uninsured people go to the ER.

I think you are are the one that is missing the point, but like the saying goes, "you can't fix stupid"!

And who is it that can't debate civilly? You are sounding very much like a troll, mercymechap...

For instance I have a driver's license but since I have no car I have no need for liability insurance.

Irrelevent.

No one loses their constitutional rights when they get behind a wheel.

If the SCOTUS cites the constitution to strike down the HCA mandate, how can it NOT strike down a state's mandate for private auto insurance?

holy fuck...

No, but a state mandate to purchase a private product when you do get on the road is STILL a state mandate.

No one, for example, is entitled to a job, here in these United States. If the HCA mandated private insurance only for people with a job, or for families which have an income from a job, instead of for everyone, that would a similar "analogy."

I'm asking a very badsic question here, and repeating, "You don't know what your talking about" isn't a response.

and you reject it...that's fine. you don't get it.

betcha a trillion dollars that the if the SCOTUS tears down the mandate that there will be no action EVER against auto liability insurance...BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING.

ok...go back to the sandbox...

sP

I read this topic with interest... except for the pugnacious and rancorous remarks directed to the OP in which you offer no substantive argument to support your erstwhile insistence that the ACA differs from car insurance in that you claim that it would only protect the individual and not others.


That's where your supposition is flawed. First, without ACA, as it stands now, we are all paying for the uninsured through through higher premiums and taxes, and providers through higher fees to cover treating these "freeloaders". So without ACA, you have no protection against the uninsured. Even your own insurance coverage is at risk due to escalating premiums from the additional costs of covering those without healthcare.


Insurance is all the same, whether its cars, homes, etc., we pay money to insure against loss. When more people are covered under ACA then the costs are shared by a larger pool, and that reduces the overall costs for everyone. So yes, just like car insurance, the ACA will protect you, and others, by eliminating the rising costs of treating the growing numbers of uninsured "freeloaders".

Did you check the source of your quoted material? While I enjoy reading right bent websites as much as any liberal, nonetheless, the article is outdated, and with the spiraling costs of heathcare, using data that's 12 years old is not very useful.


A more timely synopsis is presented by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Urban Institute using numerical data that reflects the rising costs of the uninsured without the ACA:

"In the best case, the cost of uncompensated care would increase by 74 percent and
total $111 billion in 2020."

http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412049_cost_of_failure.pdf



Be that as is may, to answer your question; Yes, I think anytime I have to pay out of pocket for the uninsured in addition to my own insurance costs, that's excessive, as is their economic impact on sociey.


Thank you.

The uninsured are not the cause of high health care costs in this country. You can try to spin it that way if you like, but few will buy that argument because to do so one must ignore reality.

You may as well be arguing that the government cannot mandate a pilot have X training before being granted X license if they cannot penalize inactivity in a given market.

You also may as well be arguing that it is just fine if Congress decided they want to increase the sales of IPad so they can fine you for not getting one.

Or that they can penalize you for not growing cabbage on your property despite the fact that you don't farm anything.
What would be the limiting factor on the trype of government you are demanding? No worries about raising taxes for infrastructure, we'll just mandate you buy so much steel and concrete and provide free labor as well.

Why are you sooo keen on distorting taxing powers?

even If you don't drive, if you have a driver's license you may have to. If you don't own a car, you don't have to buy insurance but if you buy a car and you don't buy insurance and have an accident, in most states, you will be fined. In California, if you have a driver's license (whether you own a car or not) you have to have liability insurance.

Every person with a California Drivers License is required to have auto liability insurance to comply with the Auto Financial Responsibility Law officially known as Vehicle Code section 16028.
http://trafficcourtpros.com/blog/?p=1453

But I don't pay the insurance, the owners of the cars pay that.

It's the car that's insured, not the driver so much and then it's mandatory strictly for liability.

SCOTUS has been clear over many years that driving is a priviledge not a right. States can, and many do, have sobriety checkpoints that search everyone. States can take your driver's license away for not paying child support, owing the state money and other things. They can't take away your right to vote or get married for similar things. The simple fact is driving is a priviledge not a right.

and have no insurance, you would have to pay a fine. Same with people, they don't have to buy the insurance, but if they get sick and go to the doctor/hospital, they would have to pay a fine for not having insurance.

Insurance is not mandatory for a driver, it's mandatory for a car that's operated on public roads..

Plenty of junkyards have piles of cars that are not insured.

Also the mandatory insurance on a car pays for the damages to the other person and their property not for your own injuries or property.

Then you are the type of person that most of us hate - especially if we are insured, because when we are in an accident with people like you, we end up having to carry their ass.

And, by the way, it is illegal to drive if you don't have insurance that covers damages/injuries to other people. And if you are going to use foolish semantics, here's one for you, if insurance is mandatory for cars, why don't the cars pay for it. Cars aren't able to buy insurance.

Insurance covers the driver when he drives other people's car, too. Your use of semantics is foolish, the cars in the junkyard aren't being driven and do not have the potential to hurt others.

Yes, in most countries of the world it is illegal to drive a car if you do not have an insurance that will cover any damage or injuries that you may do to other people if you have an accident in the car.
If you did not have this insurance and you knocked someone over and paralysed them, then how would you pay for the care they would need in hospital and for the rest of their life.
Because of this society has passed laws which require you to have third party insurance when you are driving a car. If you do not have this insurance you are breaking the law and committing a criminal act if you drive a car.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_illegal_to_not_have_car_insurance#ixzz1yqzYxZNW

I am a licensed driver but do not own a car..

What is so difficult to understand about that?

A drivers license is not insured, the car being driven is. If the insurance policy on the cars he drives covers other drivers he is not doing anything wrong.

It seems to be a common misconception that a driver gets insurance. The owner of a vehicle gets insurance on said vehicle.

Provide proof of liability in order to get driver's license

Or do you have to provide proof of liability on the car in which you take the test?

Two different things...

mandates economic activity not inactivity, etc.

A state mandate to purchase a private product when you do get on the road is STILL a state mandate, whether it is for "economic activity or for economic inactivity."

No one, for example, is entitled to a job, here in these United States. If the HCA mandated private insurance only for people with a job, or for families which have an income from a job, instead of for everyone, that would a similar "analogy."

I'm asking a very badsic question here, and repeating, "You don't know what your talking about" isn't a response.

Immediately...if the mandate is overturned..

I'd say...well I hope my cancer (or whatever medical condition) doesn't come back..(or 2nd heart attack..or whatever).... The insurance won't cover it now..

That leaves the door open for a Repup. to say.. Well thats ridiculous...

& You can say..well that was in the Health Care Bill ...that you couldn't be refused treatment...because you had the disease before..

(don't use 'pre -existing condition...because some don't know what that is...)

Maybe then they will start to think about what their family could lose..and the expense involved with no coverage..

It wouldn't be a complete lie..maybe that provision won't be changed..but it might be down the road..

The propaganda anti Obamacare exists on lies...so I'd think how to scare Repubs happy the SC overturns some Obamacare...

Just my 2 cents

it's a precondition for operating a vehicle on public roads, but there's no legal requirement for you to do that.
if you can get by without operating a vehicle on public roads, then there's no need for insurance.

there's no comparable way to not participate in health care.

notwithstanding that i believe the health insurance mandate to be perfectly constitutional (albeit hardly great law), this point makes health insurance very different from liability insurance requirements for voluntary participation on public roads.

If the federal government can not mandate a private individual purchase a product, and the SCOTUS cites the constitution to say so, then a state's mandate - UNDER ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES - would be tossed, too.

You don't surrender your federal rights when you get behind the wheel of a car, folks.

...and states set conditions on who may drive on their roads.

They don't even license drivers under 16. Are you telling me that a 16 year old has a Constitutional right that a 15 year old does not have? Oh please explain the magic of that condition on your right to drive.

IF you want to operate a motor vehicle, the state can require you to purchase and maintain a functional windshield, exhaust system, etc.

IF the conditions are different, then the exact same argument may not apply.

IF driving on public roads is, legally, considered voluntary, then legal arguments and constitutional rights that apply to INvoluntary things (such as participation in health care) may not apply.

for some activity: driving on public roads (you don't need it to drive on your own property).

In the other it is mandating insurance as a prerequisite for existing.

You can opt not to have a car. You can't really opt not to exist.

"You don't surrender your federal rights when you get behind the wheel of a car, folks."

That doesn't really make any sense.

Consider another analogy: the feds can force you to pass a test in order to drive a car right and then pay for the privilege of having a license to use it. Ergo it can force you to pass a test and pay for the privilege of voting.

Zoning laws generally keep businesses away from residential. So people have to commute somehow.

Public transportation in most places is either non-existent or so limited as to be impossible for commuting (ex: the buses here only run for 6 hours/day).

Walking doesn't work, because of the aforementioned zoning laws making the distances too great. In addition, government is failing to provide sidewalks or roads sufficiently wide for walking to be safe. Biking has the same narrow-road problem.

Finally, government restrictions on construction mean we can't all fit in walkable cities. Lots of people are going to have to live outside urban areas.

While driving is theoretically optional, it is really only optional for a very small percentage of people.

however, that is the legal argument, and it is entirely possible to get by without driving.
you can live in an urban area, or otherwise near a bus route, you can ride a bike, or you can get others to drive you around.

true enough, it's vastly more convenient to drive, especially when public transporation isn't nearly good enough to reach and adequately serve the entire nation. but again, the legal argument is that driving is still voluntary and if you really object to the insurance requirements, you can move to somewhere where it's easier to get by without driving.

in any event, it's very different from health care, where there is simply impossible not to participate in that market.

Your argument is that it's OK for the government to dictate that non-drivers have to move in order to avoid the auto insurance mandate.

Methinks that would not be a reasonable burden in order to avoid the auto insurance mandate.

And as I mentioned in my post, living near a bus route doesn't help when the government cuts bus service to less than a full-time shift.

many people (some seniors, physically/mentally challenged and bedridden people, etc.) living with others never drive.
others find ways of trading with neighbors and so never need to get in a car.
others use public transportation and/or taxis and/or friends & neighbors where available.

i'm not saying it's easy in many suburban/rural locations, but many people do in fact do it.

please don't focus solely on the idea of moving as a solution, that's just one of many ways of avoiding buying car insurance. in addition to avoiding driving, there's also self-insurance, though of course that's only plausible for rather well-off people.

i agree with you that driving has been encouraged by public policy so much over the course of the last century that driving has indeed gone from non-existent to a near necessity. but legal logic certainly hasn't caught up to the practical realities of driving. the concept that driving on public roads is voluntary is very well established in a long history of court decisions and is exceedingly unlikely to change.


as for voluntarily not participating in health care, no, it is not possible. it is certainly possible to be LESS of a participant than others, but at the end of the day, you will participate in health care, like it or not, if you are found unconscious, if you are judged to be a threat to yourself or others due to a medical condition, or if you have a highly contagious disease. also, you can lose you kids for failure to provide adequate medical care.


the bottom line is that EVERYONE participates, or is at risk of participating, in health care, like it or not. whereas, driving can be avoided entirely, or limited to one household member, or "outsourced" to professionals, etc. you just can't do that with health care.

Yeah, that sounds like no burden.

Look, I realize that if we only focus on the driving itself, it looks optional. And with driver training coursed beating "it's a privilege not a right" into our heads, that argument resonates.

But we've set up the rest of the system such that only a small portion of people can avoid owning a car.

The state and federal government are well within their right to regulate a public commodity or a public common, including minimum safe operating requirements and insurance against destruction of property and physical harm while using such a public commodity.

Health insurance, there is no real equivalent of that. Most hospitals and pharmaceutical companies are privately owned. What few are left are operated by religious groups, and an even smaller number are still actually municipally owned.

The question at hand is whether or not the federal government can mandate a citizen to purchase a product from a private vendor.

If the answer is no, then obviously, the state's can't do it, either.

With this legislation, Congress has effectively defined an uninsured 18-year-old man in Richmond as an interstate problem like a polluting factory. It is an assertion of federal power that is inherently at odds with the original vision of the Framers. If a citizen who fails to get health insurance is an interstate problem, it is difficult to see the limiting principle as Congress seeks to impose other requirements on citizens. The ultimate question may not be how Congress can prevail, but how much of states' rights would be left if it prevailed.

<---->

This brings us back to that 18-year-old Virginian. Congress is declaring the failure to insure oneself to be an interstate matter. There is no question that being uninsured contributes to the national crisis in health care. If that 18-year-old has a car accident, it is the public that is likely to bear the costs of his care. However, if the failure to get insurance makes one the object of federal jurisdiction, it is hard to see the why other acts of omission will not be tied to national deficiencies in public health or education or family welfare.

Though strong arguments can be made for health care reform and the individual mandate, these are matters that should not be decided by mere fiat of Congress but rather by the courts. Federalism was already on life support before the individual mandate. Make no mistake about it, this plan might provide a bill of good health for the public, but it could amount to a "do not resuscitate" order for federalism.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-03-31-column31_ST_N.htm

PB

I presumed, however, that states' rights were limited to intrastate commerce, and ONLY to those matters which the federal government didn't see a national interest.

The wheat that Filburn produced supposedly affected commerce and therefore could be regulated. It never said Filburn could be forced to buy someone else's wheat. The federal government is asking for powers far greater than Wicard v Filburn. They are arguing that doing NOTHING AT ALL is commerce. Not that providing your own health insurance or health care is commerce, but literally just being alive is affecting commerce, and therefore they can make you BUY anything.

The mandate requires neither. It is being argued that DOING NOTHING affects commerce. Not buying something. Not growing something. DOING NOTHING. It is unprecedented. 100% unprecedented. If it is found constitutional is would be an enormous expansion of power far beyond what the government has today.

Because when you end up in the ER and can't pay for it, medical providers recoup the loss by charging everyone else more. Increasing the costs on everyone else sure sounds like affecting commerce.

Now, if you want to go back to the old days of letting indigent patients die without care, then you might have a case. Of course, there's all sorts of commerce caused by disposing of a dead body and other things that will arise from that too.

The point of the eating example is that precedent means we all affect commerce by simply existing. Finding the mandate constitutional doesn't change that - the precedents were set long ago.

Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)

and even the supreme court has never said it does. You can easily go through life without ever having healthcare. Your eating example doesn't work because, as I have explained to you, it involves buying something or growing something. It has nothing to do with just living. If you never had to eat, it wouldn't affect commerce. Guess what, you don't have to have healthcare to live. That is a fact. What else does doing nothing affect the commerce of in your eyes? If I don't have a credit card does that affect commerce? Well I guess it does, unless you want to go back to the old days. Maybe you think it's a good idea that politicians who are owned by bankers have the power to force to to have a credit card, a bank account, and a mortgage. I know politicians would think that's a great idea. Oh, you don't a have a car? Well that affects commerce. There should be a law forcing everyone to buy gas!

Sorry, you're wrong here. Do nothing doesn't affect commerce, and the mandate is unprecedented.

In addition, getting back to the op, regardless if commerce clause gives the federal government the power to force people to buy insurance or not, states do have that power.

You're throwing up a nice big pile of dust to deflect from that. So how does making insured people pay more money to subsidize the uninsured's emergency care not an effect on commerce?

Should that law requiring ER care be struck down?

Nothing about this decision applies to states. Massachusetts can still mandate health insurance, even if the federal government is prohibited.

That's the wild and wacky world of constitutional law in the era of Scalia/Roberts.

How could a state constitutionally mandate the purchase of a private product, while the federal government, constitutionally, could not? Would not the state in question be violating the constitution if it did, citing whatever clause the SCOTUS uses to strike down the HCA mandate?

Look, the mandate IS constitutional ... As most scholars agree. That doesn't mean this court won't strike it down on a novel reading of the commerce clause, which only applies to the federal government.

'Cause they can't make their case, and they're quick to toss around insults instead of reason.

and thought you were being insulted when it was your arguments being shot all to hell...but nevermind that...please continue your righteous indignation.

sP

states and the federal government have very different and defined powers. Many, if not most of the powers exercised by states are not available to the federal government. Just as many powers are reserved to the federal government.

I don't say this to be facetious, but a quick reading of the Constitution might be a good refresher.

lacks power under the commerce clause to pass an individual mandate. This reasoning does not apply to states, as this restriction on the commerce clause is only applicable to the federal government, while states have power under the 10th amendment ect, to institute such a law.

Thank you for the response, tritsofme. THAT'S what I was looking for.

I, of course, view the mandate as perfectly legal.

Too many states' rights hooligans out tonight.

Why do you see the mandate as perfectly legal? Which part of the Constitution allows it?

This is why most experts believe it is constitutional.

Are there any limits to the commerce clause?

What can and can not the government force people to buy under the commerce clause?

The issue here is that an uninsured person affects the insured. The insured are essentially paying for his or her medical care should it be needed.

Many believe the commerce clause covers this. Others feel that it does not.

You're never going to find one clear definition of it that is adopted by all.

Here is a site to check out. I'm still going through it.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm

It's up to the Constitutional Court to define the limits. Personally I think it is stretching the limits somewhat. If uninsured person affects the insured, one can similarly make the same arguments about people who don't buy burial insurance or broccoli.

Last edited Mon Jun 25, 2012, 08:49 PM - Edit history (1)

The broccoli defense is a load of BS, IMO. Burial insurance shouldn't be required because there are a variety of ways to cover it. Even states have funds set aside for the indigent and poor.

I think it's appropriate here because an uninsured person affects the insured and medical costs negatively.

Wait a minute. Not everyone "gets sick". Tens of thousands of healthy people die unexpectedly in accidents every year. Add to that people who die suddenly with no advance warning. The "pool" that advocates talk about includes these people, too.

I changed it to reflect that everyone eventually needs medical care.

Just as there are people who suffer chronic illness, there are some people who just don't require doctors & hospitals. You might think that a quirk, but it is true. There are people who, when they die, have never spent a night in the hospital.

Of course, people die who may never have gone to a hospital or even saw a doctor, but it does not change the fact that bodies fail.

The vast majority of the population does wind up getting some sort of medical care.That is a fact.

...pro-confederacy garbage. It was blowing my fucking mind...

And it is kind of hard to apply the ICC to a good that cannot be sold across state lines anyway. Such a restriction would seem to specifically exclude application of the ICC.

the crux of the problem, there being no competition, or very little for health insurance companies. How and why this is I don't know much about, but it seems like this benefits a select few. Where are the anitrust laws when it comes to healthcare? Similarly, the ACA guarantees a monopoly by a few it would seem.

Requiring state-restricted insurance is how Congress wants to finance the interstate market in health care.

Plus, there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Farmer was covered by interstate commerce even though his wheat didn't leave his farm, much less the state.