The Constitutionality of Individual Mandates

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here’s another constitutional scholar on the subject:

“An individual mandate is almost certainly the kind of economic activity that the Court would uphold under Congress's Commerce Clause authority under Raich, Lopez, and United States v. Morrison," the constitutional law professor's blog said.

"These cases allow Congress to regulate activities that have a 'substantial effect' on interstate commerce, and they look to the commercial nature of the activity and to the connection between the activity and interstate commerce (among other considerations). An individual mandate is almost surely commercial in nature -- in requiring folks to buy health insurance, it requires a commercial exchange."

It may be true that the mandate is not commercial in nature because it is triggered simply by being an American, but it misses the point of regulation. The very nature of health care insurance, it is argued, requires Americans to engage in a commercial exchange. This is the definition of commerce.

“Moreover, the individual mandate is closely related to interstate commerce. The whole argument for an individual mandate is to get health care consumers to internalize their costs, and not spread them to the larger interstate economy. A health insurance mandate is almost certainly within Congress's Commerce Clause powers, whether Congress calls it an 'excise tax' or something else.”

Also, it is argued that even if Congress is acting outside its other articulated powers, the Court has interpreted the Taxing Power quite broadly, all but eliminating any distinction between a "penalty" and revenue-producing "tax."

[SMR 368]

Bullshit. I have not asked for life to be made fair, I have asked whether it is reasonable for government to provide those who are born with disabilities support so that they can take care of their own lives.

In the case of the US, government is not some separate entity 'over there', it's us, we the people, those of us who value the ability to improve the life of the individual through co-operation.

Here, we have a fundamental ideological difference that is very basic but is manifesting itself in several different ways. The "we the people" line sounds really good on paper, but the reality is that most people don't feel like the government represents them. Well under 20% of Americans approve of Congress (most polls right now average about 10%). Less than half of Americans approve of the job President Obama is doing. When you say co-operation, what you mean is coercion.

I believe in helping people who need help. I donate a significant portion of my income to charities. I don't think the government has any place doing this. Charity with someone else's money is simply robbery. That is why the government, which is not us, but really is some entity, over there, if you like, has no responsibility or authority to make life fair or try to help those who are disadvantaged.

While on the surface you have not asked for life to be made fair, you have brought a specific example of something that is unfair and asked whether it bothers me. There are many things that are unfair and many of them bother me. The example of those born with disabilities is no exception. Now you have asked a different question, should the government provide for these people. My answer is no. The government does not have authority to do that.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I didn't seek out scholars who agree with me - I searched for scholarly arguments on individual mandates (feel free to search yourself). As to what the Commerce Clause covers and doesn't cover - that again is something that SCOTUS would have to decide on a case by case basis, however, the basic premise under the clause is that the Federal Gov't has the authority as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution to regulate commerce.

Don't trip while sidestepping my question. Funny how all your scholars agree with you. If you can claim that the individual mandate for coercive action is correct when forcing someone to buy something or punishing them for not buying it, but you can't venture an opinion on the reverse, is that because the DNC hasn't issued your opinion about that concept yet?

[Pooky 3,824]

I couldn't care less whether mandating individuals to buy health insurance is constitutional or not. It's plain wrong. Private insurance companies are an inefficiency designed into the system and to feed such an inefficiency is simply inept, until you factor in the amount of money the pharmaceutical lobby threw into backing this Bill, after cutting a deal with the White House, when it smacks of being corrupt. Private insurance companies exist for one reason and that is to make money for their shareholders. This takes money out of the healthcare system and thus is an inefficiency. Ah, but pre-existing conditions are now covered, you say. That doesn't preclude insurance companies employing legions of "healthcare claims specialists" (I'm sure you've heard the radio ads), to analyse each claim in detail and generating a denial of coverage at every opportunity. The whole existence of private insurance companies is an overhead, and therefore an inefficiency in the system. This Bill just means the government is mandating we feed it some more and that's plain wrong.

[Kevin and 10]

if the insurance companies are not allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions than theorectically you could call the insurance company on day one of your in-hospital stay and sign up for a policy to go into effect immediately. sounds like you could get away with not buying insurance your entire life and still pay the penalties and just sign up after you get sick.

Maybe we'll see insurance companies setting up kiosks in hospital/clinic entrances.

[mawilson 2,133]

I couldn't care less whether mandating individuals to buy health insurance is constitutional or not. It's plain wrong.