Is it legal to mandate payments to a for-profit company?

[Ruby the Liberal]

I appreciate the auto-insurance argument, but I can choose not to drive.

Is it legal for the government to mandate that I pay money to a for-profit entity on the basis that I can't opt not to breathe?

Is it legal to force me to subsidize a multi-million dollar per year CEO and his/her beholden shareholders and fine me if I don't?

[elleng]

1. One particular company? I'd say, "NO."

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. Is it any different if there are multiple options

all cut out of the same cloth?

[elleng]

17. Yes, probably.

If competition is prevented by the law, it is different.

[rentman]

3. Utilities

Gas, electric.

[RB TexLa]

4. Who mandates that you have gas or electricity?

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. Off grid solar eliminates both

Thanks for the additional examples though.

[ixion]

6. In my opinion, it is neither legal nor constitutional

but that won't stop them from doing it anyway. It never does.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Apparently it is. Don't care insurance on your home and you get no mortgage or the bank will

put insurance on it and charge the bill to you.

[DireStrike]

8. You don't HAVE to own a home.

[sinkingfeeling]

12. Of course not. You can live without a car, a house, life insurance, etc. all you want. Some of us

like those things and have paid 'mandated' charges for the privilege of owning them. I also just love paying 'uninsured motorists' insurance for those who want to drive, but not be mandated. Same with health insurance, the uninsured cost me about $1000 a year.

However, the question is about the legality of 'mandates' to profit-making corporations. And of course, it's legal.

[DireStrike]

16. This is a different case

All of the things you mentioned are optional. You don't have to have a home, or a car, or life insurance.

If you can't afford them you won't buy them.

The plan mandates health insurance, does it not? Everyone will be forced to buy health insurance, whether they can afford it or not. Yes, "subsidies" and whatever. Let's take a best case scenario. The current subsidies are perfectly estimates and will cover every single person who could otherwise not afford insurance, and everyone will now find it affordable.

Let's say this system persists for 10 years. Do you think the subsidies will keep up with the raw rate of inflation, or with the (usually larger) actual cost of living increases? I don't think anything out of Washington has ever correctly kept up with either of those. Will the subsidies be larger in areas with a higher cost of living, or will health insurance policies really be kept equal across the board by this "exchange" system, however it works? I doubt it.

The end result here is forcing people to pay for something they may not be able to afford. And then fining them for it if they can't.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Not all home buyers need a mortgage.

And no one has to buy a home. The bank making rules for lending is not the same as the government forcing everyone to buy a product.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Yes, it is

For the simple reason that your lack of insurance could turn into a public cost at any time, and the social good of decreased costs outweighs the individual good. Furthermore, if a public option is available, then it does not mandate you pay a private company.

[Junkdrawer]

13. If your employer offers coverage, you are mandated to pay a private company....

A lot of WalMart employees will find this out very soon...

[Junkdrawer]

10. Wash Post published a legal opinion that says NO...

Illegal Health Reform
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Saturday, August 22, 2009

President Obama has called for a serious and reasoned debate about his plans to overhaul the health-care system. Any such debate must include the question of whether it is constitutional for the federal government to adopt and implement the president's proposals. Consider one element known as the "individual mandate," which would require every American to have health insurance, if not through an employer then by individual purchase. This requirement would particularly affect young adults, who often choose to save the expense and go without coverage. Without the young to subsidize the old, a comprehensive national health system will not work. But can Congress require every American to buy health insurance?

In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. Thank you.

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. Beautiful! Thank you! n/t

[mmonk]

18. Congress can write laws.

Will it stand up to Supreme Court decisions? I don't know.

[yodoobo]

19. Its legal when they pass a law making it legal.

[DireStrike]

20. Not if it is unconstitutional

unconstitutional laws can be passed and then overturned.

[yodoobo]

21. Right

But that wasn't the question.

In any event, they will completly dodge the question of constitutionality but positioning any fines for being uninsured as a tax.

And since taxes probably have more precedent than anything else in law, it'll never get near the Supreme Court.