The CBO strikes a skeptical note:
A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.
Supporters like to bring up auto liability insurance, but of course no state can force you to buy a car (even Michigan!), so no state can require that you buy insurance as a condition of residence. In fact, quite a few people get by nicely without cars or car insurance.
{ 14 comments }
In my state, not only is liability insurance required, but uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage is required. Which goes top to prove the state knows that compliance with the mandate is far from universal.
goes to prove that the state knows that compliance with the mandate is far from universal.
Or that insurance company lobbyists are earning their pay as rent-seekers.
Good point, Price!!
Rarely, do we ever ask the question, Is it Constitutional? We assume it is, and then haggle over whether to do it or not.
Where in U.S. Constitution is Congress authorized to pass a law forcing people to buy health insurance or be fined?
–HB
Is it Constitutional to draft people in a time of war?
Is it Constitutional to require identification?
Is it Constitutional to draft people in a time of war?
Yes, Congress is specifically given the power to raise armies.
Is it Constitutional to require identification?
For what?
Is it Constitutional to draft people in a time of war?
No. The Supreme Court has rejected the Involuntary Servitude argument against conscription, but I think they have it wrong.
Is it Constitutional to require identification?
If you’re asking if it’s constitutional to require people to carry specific government-issued ID at all times, no. If you’re asking if it’s constitutional to require people to prove their identity to the government in situations where the government has a legitimate reason for verifying your identity (for example, when you’re claiming a government benefit, when you’re being investigated for a crime, or when you’re attempting to cross the border), then absolutely yes.
Where in U.S. Constitution is Congress authorized to pass a law forcing people to buy health insurance or be fined?
Hank,
It ain’t in there, but if you watch Judge Judy long enough , she’ll give you an answer to yer question.
It’s the commerce clause you dolts- empowers the legislature to shred the Constitution at their leisure, just have to make a clever enough argument before the Supreme Court.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
The welfare clause is where they’ll find it. I think I read something from Hoyer about this yesterday.
I’m no fan of nationalized health care by any means – the whole idea makes me sick – but I don’t think anyone should get their hopes up that the SCOTUS would strike it down. I seriously doubt it would do so.
Remember, this is the same SCOTUS that said CFR was constitutional, despite the first amendment “shall make no law”. If “shall make no law” can be scrunched into ‘can make a law if it serves a purpose we think is okie dokie’, then there is no constitutional barrier to nationalized health care.
The thing about the liability insurance requirement for autos is that the amounts required are generally not enough to do any good. For instance, in Texas, the minimums are 20/40/15; $20,000 per person/$40,000 for all persons/$15,000 property damage.
Given current medical costs and the fact that the average new car costs somewhere close to $30,000, these numbers are just silly. This law is just for show and does very little good.
This law is just for show and does very little good.
It does lots of good for the insurance companies that paid to get the mandate passed.
It does lots of good for the insurance companies that paid to get the mandate passed.
True. I guess if I think about it, the current minimums are better than nothing at all, but they should be higher. If they’re to be required, the limits should be at a point where they do some good.
I tell people not to carry less than 50/100/50 – I carry 100/300/100 myself.
It does lots of good for the insurance companies that paid to get the mandate passed.
This is what I hate about government expansion. It means more and more rent-seeking.
Madison and Jefferson on “general welfare:”
This government has so stepped outside the boundaries created for it 200 years ago, I wonder if it’s possible now to cram everything back into Pandora’s Box without bloodshed.
Comments on this entry are closed.