Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So once again

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 07:38 AM
Original message
So once again
Edited on Fri Mar-05-10 07:41 AM by terrell9584
What in the constitution allows the federal government to force people to buy a product from a private company? What allows this? I'd really like to see it in blunt and incontravertible language because otherwise this "individual mandate" will go to court and will likely be ruled unconstitutional
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftygolfer Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. isn't it same as car insurance?
granted, driving a car is optional - but having insurance on that car is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. A 2 year old could refute that one
While a it may be implicitly mandatory to own a car to live in many places no one actually forces you to. Therefore, car insurance is simply a condition for availing yourself of a government privilege akin to how signing up for selective service is a condition for availing yourself of the privileges of federal employment and student loans. You can actually not sign up for SS but you will pay a price for that choice. No one forces you to though.


And the other problem with that is that there is no federal law on car insurance. Those laws are all at the state level. And there is nothing in the federal constitution that keeps a state from forcing you to buy a product, or same with localities.


The problem with the insurance mandate federally is that it is federal and that it not only levies from the public a duty for a private interest (which is unconstitutional by multiple provisions in the bill of rights, never mind the rest) but that the tax penalties associated with it are basically tax penalties assessed on people for living in the United States period as a condition of living here.

Once you have American citizenship you have a right to live here and if you call this a tax it can only be called a capitation tax and capitation taxes are illegal at the federal level under the constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftygolfer Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I'm not smart enough to argue your point but
I doubt any two year old could refute it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
26. The other difference with car insurance is that the states that require
only require that you carry liablity so that other drivers are covered should you cause an accident and injure someone else or damage their vehicle. It really is more of a public safety issue.

(Yes, lenders can require comprehensive coverage to protect their interest, but the law does not require that).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Knight Hawk Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Not correct
In florida ,which is a modified "no fault" state ,you DO NOT have to legally carry insurance to protect the other person's bodily injuries.You only are legally required to carry insurance,PIP,to cover your injuries and you must carry insurance to cover any property damage you cause to the other's persons property,crazy but true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. There is no federal law that requires anyone to buy car insurance
The laws that do that are all state laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
5. Well lets try this.. you are going to pay for it anyway you look at it
Social Security being the model.. is not a free program.. we pay taxes into it. Our employers are forced to pay into it.

Did you see that bolded word.. FORCED

Now we are a capitalistic socialist society. We want the private sector to run things, but government to be there when huge downturns happen. I am all for that.

So our health care model has been one of private venture.. sans those over 65 and they buy supplementals .

So I am not a bit surprised, that this would be the model this country would use.

What I want to see tweaked in that bill as it goes forward, is a public option to keep those private companies in line.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. You do know that a company can be both private and
also not for profit, don't you? This is what most of our peer nations require of those who provide basic health care and insurance for that care, that they be not for profit enterprises. They are private, non government organizations, from which those who run them make a fine living, but the company is not allowed to make profit on such services.
I wonder why you insist that here, profit must come before health? What is your reasoning for that? You pretend you are speaking about the ownership, but the real point is the structure and objective of that ownership. Why do you insist that profit must be the objective?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Prior to 1986 BCBS was listed as a non profit..
BS was an amalgam of I think the lumber industry.. a co-op sort of.. Now you have to look that up..I may have it bass ackwards.. but non profits given time, will become just as corrupt as anything else. My BCBS went up 18% two weeks ago.

What I want from my government is oversight. Public ownership will corrupt just as quickly as private ownership.

I want oversight..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. So your argument is that BCBS, which has been for profit
for 24 years USED to be non profit, and 24 years later they upped your rates? So a for profit company upped your rates, correct? If BCBS is a for profit company, a for profit company upped your rates for profit. Which is why, as I said, no other developed nation forces the purchase of for profit products of of any kind, although several do mandate purchase of private insurance. The oversight goes without saying.
Do you have an example of a currently non profit company gouging you? Because you example does not really prove your point nor does it counter mine. Blue Cross Blue Shield is a for profit company, and has been for longer than many voters have been alive. When they were non profit, they were far better than they are now, in my opinion. You like them better under the for profit system, even with the rate jumps? Back in the day I had BCBS with no co pays, fully funded by my employers via my union. The same deal now costs high premiums, high co pays, deductibles (I never had any deductible) and so forth. Now, not, but someone makes huge profits. Is that really better?
BCBS's changes prove my point rather clearly. Once they went for profit, they went downhill. And costs soared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. What is your argument? You do know you are going to pay whether
private or public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I have to get ready for work.. I really really want to continue this discussion
I will be back after 4 this afternoon.. I am bookmarking this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. That's Why The Medical Loss Ratios, Gov't Approval Of Rate Increase And Non-Profit Options On
The exchanges are very good aspects of the current plan. The exchange(s) MUST include a non-profit option.

These will serve as price controls. If they prove insufficient, they will/can be strenghthened.

It's a start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. Social security is analagous to single payer
Not at all what we're talking about here and social security taxes are only levied on those who work. They are not technically levied on the person. They are levied on the income. If you don't work you don't pay payroll taxes.

So social security, and medicare and all the other "tax" arguments are also arguments that won't hold water simply because those are all paid directly to the government to pay for direct services provided by the government (in purpose)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #5
16. That is twisted.
ummm, no!

We want our private sector to run things, but not every fucking thing. And no, I don't think the government should use corporate welfare to bail them out after they've fucked us over. You wanna live through more depressions, keep up that kind of thinking.l

There is no federal law that enforces people to buy a product made by a private entity. NONE.

It doesn't matter that we have private corporations, the federal government has never mandated that we must give our money to a private entity. To the government, yes, but never to a private entity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
8. What Forbids It?
Edited on Fri Mar-05-10 10:55 AM by Beetwasher
Making sure people have access to health care is "providing for the common welfare" so they are free to "pursue life, liberty and happiness".

How can everyone have access to health care if no one wants to pay for it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave29 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. +800
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrell9584 Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Single Payer would be constitutional
As it would be a public system with public money. What is unconstitutional is the federal government forcing citizens to buy a private product. How you can read the constitution and not come to this conclusion I do not know. Many things are ambigious in it. This one is not. The intent is pretty clear and even if you adopt the "living document" idea it doesn't mean that the constitution says the exact opposite of what is in the text and the text is what damns this thing.


I believe everyone should have access to quality health care but I also support the U.S. Constitution and the best way to do it is a single payer system with large tax increases on the rich with very little paid by the working and middle classes. It's the only fair way to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. So Then Show Me The Article That Forbids It
It's not unconstitutional jus cuz u say it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. providing for the common welfare with government programs, not for profit private entities
that are already raping and pillaging us financially.

People really should read what common welfare means. The government provides for the common welfare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Nothing More Fundamental To Common Welfare than The health of citizens
Edited on Sat Mar-06-10 04:19 PM by Beetwasher
And there is nothing in the constitution that would make HCR unconstitutional. Show me the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. The fact that the government has not been granted any such power?
The Constitution exists to tell the government what its powers are and (in SOME cases, not all) are not. If the Constitution doesn't grant the government a power, then it doesn't HAVE that power. And no, the preamble language about "general welfare" is not legally-binding. That part is prose about goals and reasoning. The rest of it is the legally-binding part. If it's not contained within an Article or Amendment, then it's not a law.

Oddly enough, single-payer would be perfectly fine by Constitutional standards because it doesn't involve the government forcing us to buy a private product. It involves the government forcing us to buy into a public good, which has already passed Constitutional muster many times before. I'd bet the farm that an enforceable mandate to purchase a private product is smacked down by the SCOTUS, though. If they make the mandate toothless and unenforceable, then it might make it past the judicial review process because nobody will have been harmed by it--therefore nobody will have any actual standing to bring a case against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Bullshit
Edited on Sat Mar-06-10 04:20 PM by Beetwasher
It's not forbidden therefore not unconstitutional. Unless a court decides it as such.

Perhaps u think federal food safety standards are also unconstitutional? Nothing granting that power either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. well, federal food safety standards
can be squeezed into the commerce clause. Perhaps mandated health insurance can be squeezed into that clause too, but that would be quite a stretch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Quite A Stretch Indeed
Edited on Sat Mar-06-10 09:55 PM by Beetwasher
To say it's unconstitutional. How about federal regs on the environment? Nothing in the constitution granting that specific power. I could go on and on. Does the constitution need to grant specific powers for every possible action? The argument is silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. As long as the specific power falls within the scope
of one of the general powers that are enumerated in the Constitution, it does not have to be explicitly mentioned to be granted. But the federal government only has the powers that are granted to it in the Constitution. And it's not obvious that it has the one in question. Can you predict what SCOTUS will say about this one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Providing for general welfare should cover it
and since no one is actually being forced to do anything it's moot. Exchanges will have non-profit options and you can always opt out and pay the tax instead, that is if your not already going to be covered by some other aspect of the plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Providing for the general welfare won't do it.
As James Madison wrote in Federalist 41:

"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
22. Nothing in the bills requires purchasing from a private company.
You can purchase from a non-profit co-op, or pay the annual health tax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
23. Good thing the bill doesn't require it. You can opt to pay a tax penalty instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
30. It will pass, just as there is a mandate to pay into Social Security
Edited on Sun Mar-07-10 11:50 AM by demwing
you make it a tax on income. It will come directly out of your paycheck. Those that do not have jobs, or other income sources, would qualify for Government subsidies anyway.

Easy breezy.

On edit - it was stated up thread that "The problem with the insurance mandate federally is that it is federal and that it not only levies from the public a duty for a private interest (which is unconstitutional by multiple provisions in the bill of rights, never mind the rest)"

This actually gives me a ray of hope that the public option can be pried into this mess in order to make it constitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC