Mandate supporters are correct that it spreads the risk

[terrell9584]

I will concede that not having younger healthier workers paying into the health insurance system means a sicker market and higher premiums. I give you that.


I will concede that there are people who actually can afford insurance but choose not to so they can have a higher grade of lifestyle in terms of other products and services they purchase. I give you that.


I will concede that in a perfect world if you made the government sanctions so intolerable that not purchasing the insurance would make less economic sense that opting for the fine that it would "spread the risk" and possibly lower premiums. I give you that.


I will even concede the idea that you cannot require companies accept everyone without such a mandate without it making premium costs balloon. I give you that.


I give all the supporters of the mandate their points. But there's one one problem. See, there has never been a case where the U.S. government has forced citizens to buy a product or service from a privately held enterprise under threat of legal sanction. The constitution seems to suggest that such a thing would be unconstitutional because it would take a far more broader interpretation of the commerce clause that is in effect now to make this pass muster.


If it is passed it will be taken to court. The American people will be angry. It will make an already toxic political environment even more toxic. But the important thing is that it will go to court. And when it goes to the Supreme Court one of two things happen.


1. The Court does what I expect it do and rules the thing unconstitutional using some combination the capitation clause, the equal protection amendment and the 5th amendment clause dealing with not being deprived of private property. I imagine with the current composition of a court you might be surprised as there would probably be a conservative justice who votes to sustain and a liberal justice who votes to rule it unconstitional. But I likely think it is ruled unconstitutional with 6-3 and maybe even 7-2.

2. 21st Century Marbury vs. Madison:, the high court somehow finds this constitutional. If it does it opens a new chapter in both equal protection law (subsidies, some people punished with mandate payments while others go scott free) and 5th amendment law. It establishes a precedent that the legislative and executive branch now have the right under the constitution to require citizens to participate in certain ways in the private economy. It is a precedent that once established will be very hard to overturn and easy to abuse. It would also be a very unpopular decision with the public in a country as self-absorbed and freedom obssessed as America. It would pave the way for the government to have the ability to tell you what food you must buy and from whom, what services you could buy, it could extended to what cable you have to buy, what modifications you have to have on your home and who you buy it from and so on.


My point is simply this. You are correct that the mandate spreads the risk. You are correct that many people would be helped by this legislation. You are even correct that this could lay the groundwork for a true universal system. However, what the mandate could do to the U.S. Constitution and the anger it will inspire in millions of America is simply not a trade off I want to make because if the individual mandate is sustained it will forever change the nature of federal power in the United States. It's just a bad idea. And you need to think long and hard about all the implications when you push such a policy.

[ProSense]

1. "However, what the mandate could do to the U.S. Constitution "

RW talking point: The Inevitable Conservative Argument that Health Care Reform is Unconstitutional

The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate for Health Insurance: The Short Version

[terrell9584]

3. It's not a RW talking point

And even if they are using it the fact that they are wouldn't make it any less true. That opposition on both the left and right are using this argument should tell you there is a validity. If it were merely an ideological argument only one side would use it.



This mandate is only constitutional under relatively new modes of constitutional thought and the OMB itself came out and said there has never been a case where the federal government has forced citizens to purchase certain products as a precondition of living here.


And once a precedent is established it is very hard to overturn.

[ProSense]

4. It is a RW talking point, and this:

"This mandate is only constitutional under relatively new modes of constitutional thought"

Absolute nonsense.

[terrell9584]

6. It's really not

Even at the times when personal freedom in America was most restricted (Lincoln administration, Wilson administration, WWII) and when all sorts of laws were passed restricted what private individuals could do there was never ever even consideration of passing a law forcing Americans to purchase anything other than government provided services through taxes.


Like it or not this is unprecedented ground we are on.

[DrToast]

19. It really is and it's irrelevant. In legal terms, there isn't a mandate

People only talk about a mandate because it helps people understand things. In a legal sense, there is no such mandate. What we have is a tax. If you can prove you have insurance, you don't have to pay that tax.

This is especially fair when you consider that hospitals can't refuse treatment on people who need it.

[Gravel Democrat]

9. At least *someone* else gets it

Great post.

It's unconscionable that this question of Constitutionality has not been raised
by the Mainstream Media. Not a single time. And when a 3rd rate news org
actually had the guts to ask Queen Pelosi about it here is what she said:

'Are You Serious?'
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971

Notice also that the (R)s avoid this topic like the plague. They want this power
too. This is the most disgusting assault on the Constitution since prohibition.
And at least our "Representatives" at the time realized that they must amend
our Law of the Land.

If you really want to see some floundering, ask supporters of this abortion
"Where does the Federal Government get the authority to mandate the purchase
of Anything?"

Many will spout some such nonsense as "General Welfare" or something. They
don't even know how the O Admin rationalizes it. And the Admins own reasoning,
the Commerce Clause, is shocking. Even more than Wickard v. Filburn

These employees of ours take an oath to uphold the Constitution. We need
to make sure before we elect them that they understand it.

[ProSense]

10. CNS News? "Queen Pelosi"? Are you lost? n/t

[sabrina 1]

18. It is not a righwing talking point. It USED to be a leftwing

talking point ever since Republicans came up with the idea of mandated insurance.

The reason rightwingers love the idea is because of their hatred for the poor. They are convinced that the poor are just lazy, no-good liberals. So when Romney introduced his Mandated Insurance rightwingers were delighted to learn that those lazy liberal bums would have to pay or go to jail.

The left, at that time, rightly opposed it, for several reasons, but mainly because it was just one more way to put poor people in jail. The privatized prison system loved it. It was also pointed out that it was probably unconstitutional back then, NOT by the right but by the left. I know as I was one of those who argued with rightwingers that you cannot force people to buy a product from a private company. Especially from Corps that have paid Congress for their help in getting them new customers.

Now, the 'left' has taken the position of the right. Obama, who opposed mandates now supports them and has used the rightwing charge that was so familiar to anyone who engaged them on this issue, that people without insurance 'are a burden on the rest of us'.

Either you are not familiar with the history of this travesty of a policy, or you are simply dipping into your bag of rightwing talking points.

I have one beef with the OP. I do not know anyone without insurance because they just want to save the money. Every single person I know who is not covered, cannot afford it.

Those who have died for lack of health care, did not die to save money.

Mandates are a rightwing idea. Punishing the poor is a rightwing idea. And forcing them to buy premiums they cannot afford from private Corps has ALWAYS been considered to be unConstitutional.

The OP is right, there WILL be challenges to this bill, from both sides, Liberals and Conservatives. Because it is another erosion of people's Constitutional rights.

The solution is a Universal Healthcare system like every other country in the civilized world. But we have a Corporate run government which is THE only reason why this right is being denied to the American people.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. Most people have insurance, most that don't have it would buy it if they could afford it

Polls show that a lot of people oppose the concept of mandates, no surprise. Polls also show that voters overwhelmingly support a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. But time and again, it has been shown that the issue of flag burning is pretty low in terms of salience and voters rarely tend to place a high priority on it.

Mandates will likely be the same way. There isn't going to be populist outrage about the government forcing people to buy a product that they are already buying.

[terrell9584]

5. 10% of the people aren't buying it

And when you consider who is in that 10% the percentage of them who are tax paying adults is probably higher than 10%

I don't expect 100% compliance. I'll be shocked if there's even 50% compliance. The fines are low. Many people, and I expect this to be prevalent among the young, will do the numbers and figure out that it is more economical to pay the fine then it is to get the insurance. I imagine many will ask for it to be taken out in withholding. They won't get into the system until they are sick.


As it stands now the weak fines mean the mandates won't work as intended and fines will rise. But instead of arguing about the actual policy we actually should talk about constitutionality. This is a huge step for the federal government. And unprecedented increase in the power of the federal government over its citizens. An obligation the government is placing upon residents unlike any it has before.


This country was not founded by men who were first and foremost concerned with effective social policy. It was founded by men with core ideals who put it in a constitution. I'd prefer the constitution to not be twisted against the ideals that this country is supposed to be about.


And the thing is, single payer would actually be constitutional. As a government administered service it would qualify under health & welfare the way most government programs do. This however, not actually being run by the government does actually constitution depriving citizens without due process of law their private property for the benefit of a private enterprise. Something that actually is unconstitutional and that has been unconstitutional since there was a constitution.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. You assume young people think of insurance as catastrophic coverage

As a young person I like being able to go see a doctor on a regular basis and to be able to afford prescription medications. Thus I will be very happy when the government starts subsidizing insurance.

[boomerbust]

7. New Sheriff in Town

Get Over It

[terrell9584]

8. Why should I?

I work. I pay taxes. I come from a family that has long been associated with the labor movement. I have every right as a taxpaying, voting, American citizen to express my opinion on political matters. It is guaranteed to me by the U.S. Constitution that millions of servicemen have shed their blood for to protect, a constitution that the Civil Rights movementers endured the terrorism of the 1950's in order to see it applied equally. A lot of people have shed their blood and otherwise paid a price for the defense of that document. I apologize if my respect for their sacrifices offend others.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raine]

12. THANKS

for posting this. :thumbsup:

[grahamhgreen]

13. Nice post although I can't concede you points, for example

Not having young people paying in means higher premiums - well I think that higher premiums are only Dependant on how greedy the board of directors feels on a any particular day - not whether or not the young are buying into their sketchy insurance products with no guarantee of pay-out.

In fact, I do not feel like big insurance will reduce premiums whatsoever based on the huge influx of mandated capital they will receive. More likely, they will buy another senator.

[Hello_Kitty]

15. Yep, and lectures and guilt trips only add insult to insult. eom

[Unvanguard]

16. Since by "legal sanction" you mean "tax penalty", this argument doesn't hold.

Having no health insurance will not be a crime. Having no health insurance and not paying the tax penalty will be. But the tax code already contains all sorts of deductions and modifications based on individual circumstances, so there is no reason to believe that this is unconstitutional.

[harun]

17. Wrong argument. I disagree with the mandates because insurance != care.

Insurance companies get paid for years and years from people and when the people use the insurance they refuse to pay. They have hundreds of reasons they choose from not to, sometimes not even giving a reason. One could be legally required to pay an entity that in turn has no obligation to pay for care. Of course one can fight legally in court to make the entity pay, but how practical is that for people? It isn't.

Now if the entities are not for profit one at least has a fighting chance. The people take out of the pool of money and pay for care. They won't make more money by refusing to pay for care. They make their wage and the rest of the pool is for care. The for-profits have a whole lot of people wanting to drink from their pool, the shareholders. They have to give less care to continue to grow profit's, like Wall Street demands them to do.

Mandate doesn't spread the risk when you have for-profits in the equation, it simply increases the profits and revenue of the for-profits.