Can someone explain how it's constitutional to require citizens to buy insurance from private,

[intheflow]

for-profit companies? Other than taxes, is there any precedent for requiring citizens to buy something or face fines and and possible jail time? :shrug:

[eleny]

1. Do you smell a massive class action suit on the horizon if this shit passes?

[intheflow]

4. i surely do, eleny. n/t

[earth mom]

5. Yep-let's sue their a$$e$ off!

:grr:

[Donnachaidh]

12. oh yeah, and most likely I'll be part of it

A kid with a bleeding disorder and forced to buy insurance from companies that have refused us insurance for him in the past? I can see them quoting us monstrous payments, and we'll be a few bucks over the poverty level, so we'll be screwed...

A new version of the company store, coming from a Democratic President...

[eridani]

60. What about a civil rights lawsuit about the age discrimination? n/t

[bighart]

67. Great idea!

Hadn't thought of that.

[Dinger]

2. HOLY SHIT! DAMN GOOD QUESTION!!

Excellent, excellent question. Damn.

[Inuca]

18. Incredibly good question!

No wonder that the teabaggers have been asking it all summer long, and that Orrin Hatch gave a very long and probaby very well argued oration about this in the Senate a couple of days ago.

[TiberiusGracchus]

74. Unfortunately, States have been requiring people to buy private insurance for a long time...

just driver's insurance though. It's rarely been challenged constitutionally and has been around long enough to be considered "settled".

Sorry to say guys but if this monstrosity passes, Howard and Kos are right, we are STRAIGHT FUCKED.

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. Not to mention, the industry is still protected from anti-trust regulations.

[Ruby the Liberal]

6. Before anyone brings up auto insurance, that isn't the same at all.

I can choose not to drive. I can't choose my DNA and breathing isn't optional.

[GrantDem]

22. In addition to that. I think most states offer minimum coverage insurance.

[winyanstaz]

24. no you cant always chose not to drive...

In todays world you must be able to get to your job..to the store and to the Doctors and they are NOT always on a bus line or easy to get to without a car.
Not to mention life's little emergencies.
and not to mention...that choosing or not..is not the way it is decided.
It is the Constitution that states that Congress, The Executive and the Judicial systems are LIMITED to the powers expressly given to them in the Constitution.
No where in the Constitution does it allow for citizens to be forced into buying from certain private companies.
This mandate is unconstitutional.
If they can force you to buy Insurance..then they can decide everything you can or MUST buy...or not.

[tonysam]

34. Not true for most people. A car is a NECESSITY--NOT a luxury as many posters seem to think

Public transportation is a joke almost everywhere in the United States. The fact is if you don't have a car, you can't work, and if you can't work, you can't eat, let alone pay medical bills.

The analogy is appropriate.

People can and do go many, many years without medical or dental care and don't die.

[flyarm]

38. In most states drivers licensees and driving is considered a "PRIVILEGE" NOT A "RIGHT"

health care and health insurance is a different matter entirely!

[intheflow]

41. People can carpool,

ride bikes, skateboards, walk, etc. If you chose to live in the 'burbs or the country and there's no public transportation near you, you still made that choice, and a car is still not absolutely necessary. (See above carpooling suggestion.)

If your job requires you to have a vehicle (courier, independent taxi-driver, etc.) then you already get a tax write-off as a business expense to offset your insurance costs.

I don't mean to sound cavalier about this, God knows I drive my car to both my jobs, only one of which is on a public transportation line, but in theory not everyone needs a car. But everyone will need healthcare at some time. That's the salient point I'm making.

[Ruby the Liberal]

69. You apparently have never lived in a large city.

[Ruby the Liberal]

70. I lived in a large metropolitan city and didn't have a car

If I needed to go somewhere off the train lines (like the airport), I took a cab.

[earth mom]

7. FWIW, Taxes aren't even legal. This mandate shit is NOT gonna fly with the people. nt

[intheflow]

11. This is true.

But at least they're useful for roads, schools, libraries, police, fire fighters, etc., etc.

[stevietheman]

66. Actually, taxes are completely Constitutional. Nice try. n/t

n/t

[elocs]

8. Asked here at DU at 3:26 a.m. Wednesday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7239131

[intheflow]

16. Thanks, I missed that one.

Glad I asked again b/c it seems like other DUer missed it, too.

[elocs]

35. I know they can be missed, but when I see things get posted that I think I've seen before

I feel like I am having a senior moment. I'm not sure if I imagined that I had seen it before, or maybe I am imagining it now. :bounce:

[pleah]

9. K&R!

[leftstreet]

10. Here's how they plan to do it: (Taxing and Commerce Clause)

In recent months, several commentators have suggested that a major element of the health care legislation before Congress is unconstitutional. Under the House and Senate bills, access to health care would be increased by imposing a mandate on individuals to purchase health care coverage. But, say some experts, the federal government does not have the power to require people to buy an insurance policy.

While there may be a germ of truth to this argument, there are no constitutional barriers to the kind of insurance mandate contemplated by Congress. To be sure, if Congress passed a law whose only provision entailed a mandate for individuals to purchase a product, and violators of the law were automatically subject to incarceration, constitutional concerns would arise. Imagine a criminal law that required people to buy an American-made automobile to bolster the domestic car industry. But that is not the kind of mandate Congress is contemplating. Rather, the House and Senate approach will readily fall within their taxing and commerce clause authority.

Critics of a mandate correctly observe that the federal government is a government of limited powers. While state governments have broad powers to regulate on behalf of the general welfare, the federal government can only act under a power enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, even though states can require people to purchase automobile insurance, it is not necessarily the case that Congress can require people to purchase health care insurance.

Nevertheless, a mandate to purchase insurance can be justified by the Constitution's grant to Congress of a taxing power and a commerce clause power. The taxing power is a well-established basis for enacting an individual mandate. Indeed, this country has had a tax-based mandate to purchase health care insurance for nearly 45 years. The Medicare program imposes a payroll tax on Americans as a way to fund coverage of their hospital costs once they reach age 65. People cannot opt out of Medicare; it is an obligatory system of health care insurance for one's senior years. Similarly, Congress can use a payroll tax to implement a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance before they reach age 65. Under the House bill, for example, people will pay a 2.5 percent tax on their income unless they have health care coverage.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-orentlicher/an-individual-mandate-to_b_391810.html

[intheflow]

20. I saw that in the other thread.

I still think it won't stand up in court.

[leftstreet]

28. All Congress has to do is 'regulate' the insurance companies

Which it can do under its Commerce Clause power

That's the theory anyway!

[Yupster]

56. "The Federal Government can only act under a power

enumerated in the Constitution."

Oh it's good to have a good hearty laugh before going to bed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Article I, Section 8:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

[intheflow]

19. Please tell me where it says Congress has the power to require

citizens to buy private insurance from for-profit entities. Everything I read there said they had the power to tax citizens for municipal/federally-run programs, but it said nothing about having the power to coerce citizens into buying goods or services from private, for-profit businesses.

[tritsofme]

31. Your decision not to purchase mandated health insurance would effect interstate commerce

in the aggregate.

Unless you were to never use any healthcare services, your choice not to purchase mandated insurance would effect the broader market, through higher overall costs, less diverse risk pools, ect and would definitely effect commerce in a way that the federal government has an interest, and the ability to regulate, including fines for non-compliance.

[AngryAmish]

77. Then there is nothing that Congress cannot do

Congress can require every American to get a tattoo of Lemmy on their thigh (and why anyone wouldn't want such a tattoo is a mystery - but not the point right now). If, in the aggregate, Americans not getting the Lemmy tattoos effect the price of ink or bandages or razors, then, under your theory we can all be forced to get tattoos.

on edit: This is what the mandated tattoos might look like:
or

[tritsofme]

78. Well it isn't my theory, see Wickard v. Filburn

I doubt a Congress that mandated tattoos would be in power very long.

[polly7]

14. I am amazed at this.

I've read it makes sense because more will be contributing into the overall pool, but as those who can afford insurance already have it ...... those without and who obviously don't choose to be without, are going to have no choice but to be fined? What am I missing here? How does it help anything? Do they really believe people without insurance currently just 'choose' not to get it?

[BunkerHill24]

15. You are forgetting that Congress makes laws.

Nevertheless you can challenge it with all your might, but I doubt you will go far.

[winyanstaz]

17. That is a good question and the answer is NO....

It is NOT constitutional and neither is manditory car insurance....
But they did it anyways.
And a Constitutional Lawyer should know it too.

[doc03]

21. Well they have required people to buy insurance on

their car for years. My brother was arrested and put under $15000 bail for not having a valid insurance card. He paid out $1500 to a bail bondsmen to get out of jail then when he went to court they admitted it was a mix up and said they made a mistake and was sorry for the excessive bail and dropped the charges, but he was out the $1500.

[intheflow]

23. Yes, but you don't necessarily need a car.

But you can't escape your body and your eventual need for healthcare at some time in your life.

[doc03]

29. So you think you should skate by with no insurance

as long as you are healthy then when you get sick you make the other people that carried insurance pay. Doesn't sound fair to me, you don't buy auto insurance after you run into another car and kill someone.

[intheflow]

32. I never suggested people with cars shouldn't carry car insurance.

But you can take taxis, walk, ride a bike, carpool---there are many ways to get around not having a car. But I think it makes perfect sense to to have everyone pay into a federal pool and be able to access healthcare like every other first-world, Western nation.

[doc03]

30. If we had national health care we wouldn't be faced with that

problem would we?

[bighart]

68. what federal regulation requires that I buy auto insurance?

The only regulation I am aware of is a state one.

[BlueIdaho]

25. This is Orwellian

What will they mandate we buy next? New cars?

[dflprincess]

27. Maybe - because then you'll have to buy car insurance

and I'll bet the insurance companies who don't deal in health policies are wondering when they're going to get their piece of the corporate bail outs.

[madville]

33. They could tax us enough to make buying a new car cheaper than keeping an old one

They do that in Japan. After a car is over six years old or something they begin drastically raising the registration fees and taxes so it is cost prohibitive to keep old cars and makes newer cars more attractive.

[Ozymanithrax]

26. I think a law suit would be an excelent way to go.

It will probably depend on how the wording comes out in the bill. If it is written as a tax, then congress can determine who the taxes go to and you won't have a pot to piss in. As for fines, congress can set fines for those who refuse to pay taxes.

A lawsuit would hinge on Article I section 8...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This is the "General Welfare" clause and it is often used to do things like welfare. I would bet that any defense will be based on the General Welfare clause. Republicans hate it, and have, so far, been unable to narrow its definition to something they like. (Among other things, Social Security and Medicare are besed on the General Welfare Clause.)

[truedelphi]

36. It is not constitutional. Not at all. And also, since this current Bill will force

people over 50 to remain unemployed, (Employers cannot afford the premiums on these people) unless they are in some sort of very sought after speciality, there will be plenty of lawsuits over that aspect.

And is AGE not the one great "pre-exisitng" condition? After all the only way you can be fifty two is because last year you were fifty one.

[TheWebHead]

37. you could've asked the same question about a govt run option

but it's either that or the pre-existing situation remains. and you don't have to buy from a for profit, there are and will be more non profits now and in the exchange.

[HuckleB]

39. +1

[intheflow]

42. Not really.

A government run option would be akin to taxes for roads, schools, the post office, etc. I wouldn't be paying money directly into a CEO's pocket. There would be public oversight and regulation. And costs would decrease across the board because we'd be paying into one entity, not several companies competing for market share.

[Lorien]

47. plus no advertising and multi-million dollar CEO bonuses. nt

[notesdev]

40. I'll take "It's Not" for $200, Alex

But the "it's just a goddamn piece of paper" policy lives on anyway. Hopey changium, yay!

[jberryhill]

43. Nudity remains illegal in most places /nt

[lonestarnot]

44. Can't make me!

Neener neener neener!

[Rabrrrrrr]

45. In my opinion, it isn't. That was my immediate thought when Obama gave his speech.

I thought, "Okay, I can see legality of making people buy car insurance if they have a car - a car isn't a necessary part of life. But forcing everyone to have health insurance just because they have a body? That's illegal. And if not illegal, it's a stupendously immoral thing."

[Lorien]

46. I've asked this as well, but never got a sufficent answer

this is unlike taxes because the money goes into private for profit hands and not toward the greater good.

[marlakay]

48. My husband was saying even with car insurance at least

you have a choice not to drive, with this what is your choice, to die?

[Adsos Letter]

49. YOU'RE FEELING BETTER!

...in here stirrin' it up in GD with the pointed question. :D

In all seriousness; you're question is excellent, and I have no idea.

I'm also serious when I say that I'm glad you're feeling better.

[intheflow]

51. Hi there!

Yes, fools rush in where brave men dare not tread. In my case, I'm in GD. I notice your contributions to GD today are less... pointed. And still someone wants to pick a fight with you over the Shroud of Turin, as if you were endorsing its validity by mentioning it! :rofl:

And thanks for the well wishes (pun intended). I'm pretty sure your peonies did the trick! :hug:

[Adsos Letter]

53. It never ceases to amaze me that links to news stories

are taken as an endorsement of a position; the Daily Mail story actually had much better photos. :D

:hug: back atcha'

[Waiting For Everyman]

50. I don't think it'll stand up either. n/t

[bobbolink]

52. Don't look now, but the corporations now own the Constitution.

They gots their "personhood", donchaknow.

Plus their exemption from trade protections.

Yup, ownership.

[WillowTree]

54. What provision of the Constitution would you think such a law would violate?

[winyanstaz]

59. When Pelosi was asked that question she said...

"Are you serious? Are you serious?" and then turned away and failed to answer the question.
Later a statement was sent out to the press.
S. Cunningham wrote about that a month ago...when he said and I quote:
"As opposed to Pelosi's treasonously wide interpretation of the general welfare clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) as her excuse to establish health care, Pelosi is obligated by her oath to defend the Constitution to do the following if she wants to establish national health care. She is to be honest with herself and recognize that the federal Constitution doesn't expressly delegate power to the federal government to regulate and lay taxes for public health care and comply with Article V as her only recourse to try to establish it. Article V requires Pelosi to rally Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution which would authorize Congress to establish a federal health care program. A three quarters state majority would then be required to ratify such an amendment, the states having the option not to ratify it. In the meanwhile, all that Democratic-inspired federal health care amounts to is another example of Constitution-ignoring Democrats wrongly usurping state powers."

I could not say it better myself.

[intheflow]

62. I actually believe in establishing a national healthcare system

under the general welfare clause, but not one that requires citizens to buy a service from a for-profit private company. I'd be more than happy to pay taxes into a federal program administered and run as a government agency.

[winyanstaz]

76. me too

[Poll_Blind]

55. k&r! n/t

PB

[Kablooie]

57. Because if a biased SCOTUS says it's constitutional, it is. Whether the document says so or not.

[upi402]

58. lol, welcome to the new America

I don't recognize this country anymore. And lunatics are all over TV News calling Obama a socialist. His presidency will be sunk by the TV news and the slow and painful awakening of the soft, doughy masses.

[Blue Meany]

61. It's just a more direct form of taxation...

Instead having the IRS collect it before passing on to the corproations, they are cutting out the middleman and having you send directly to the corporations that run the country.

[intheflow]

63. The government doesn't need to be the middle man.

We could do away with health insurers entirely, retrain those workers to do the same thing as federal employees. It would be cheaper for everyone in the long run, with the only disadvantage being to the fat cats at the top of the insurance food chain. But it's not like insurance companies would go out of business, there are many types of insurance people buy other than healthcare: car, home, life, to name three.

[metalbot]

64. People will not be required to buy private insurance...

...but if they don't, they are going to pay more taxes.

Congress definitely has the constitutional authority to set income tax policy, and this policy can be based on your interactions with a private company (for example, you can lower your tax bill by paying interest to a bank on a home loan).

[tom_paine]

65. Where, pray tell, is this mythical "Constittution" you speak of?

I see no evidence of it. I see evidence of Naked Aristocratic Power doing what Naked Aristorcratuc power does.

Oh, oh, I see, you mean that tattered bit of window-drapery that all the aristocrats laugh at and ignore? That has ZERO bearing on governance in our Inverted Totalitarianism?

That lil' thing? What are those brown skid marks on it? Surely such a revered document wouldn't be used as toilet paper for our Corporate Aristocracy?

:rofl:

Get used to it. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTION in Inveretd Totalitarianisms like Americccca.

But it does serve as fine window dressing and a pacifier for the Plebs and Proles.

Much in the same way that the PTB's letting Obama win will ensure that 99.9% of Americans, for the rest of their days, will NEVER EVER EVER question our laughably untrustworthy "voting" system.

Inverted Totalitarianism is more about marketing and PR than anything else.

[Shrek]

72. self-delete

Replied to wrong post

[Kitsune]

71. Whatever the Supreme Court says is constitutional is constitutional.

And can you really imagine the wholly-owned corporate court saying that it's not?

[Shrek]

73. It's a matter of some debate

A Healthy Debate: The Constitutionality of an Individual Mandate

[Cleita]

75. The precedent was in Victorian England, what with debtors prisons

and all. This is an updated version of it.

[CrispyQ]

79. After 8 years of being used to wipe the ass of Cheney/Bush,

what little is left of the Constitution is hard to read.

They're making it up as they go, now. Just wait until thet allow the corporations to vote. One vote per share of publically traded stock. I wish I were joking.