The Constitutionality of Individual Mandates

[Kevin and 10]

Where specifically in either the 9th or 10th Amendment does it give explicit rights for states to secede?

Yes, there aren't a lot of things specifically spelled out in the Constitution, however, we can look at Supreme Court rulings to get an indication of what has precedence or not. Secession clearly does not.

Children are not a commodity...at least not in modern times.

The Constitution doesn't say States can't leave the Union.

But I'm still trying to find where it says people must buy health insurance from private companies?

[SMR 368]

I'm still rather curious as to how those who consider health care as a privilege view those who are born with congenital defects. Dependent on the severity of the illness caused by the defect such people are more or less dependent on health care for the right to life. How should these people be treated to give them equality of opportunity?

I believe that people have a right to healthcare.

The issue is that rights are not guaranteed by the government. Rights are something that the government is not allowed to restrict. Thus, the right to bear arms doesn't mean the government has to buy you a gun and the freedom of the press doesn't mean that the government has to pay to publish your newspaper.

Claiming that because people have a right to healthcare means that the government should pay for it is logically equivalent to claiming that because people have a right to bear arms the government should pass out guns. Rights just don't work that way.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

How does that save you money? I would imagine there are policies that kick in once a procedure hits a certain amount so they can save on the cheap stuff and still be protected when health issues hit the large numbers.

Generally speaking - see mawilson's post.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm not so sure. Insurance is essentially a bet against yourself.

If you're young and healthy, it's a waste of money. Health insurance

costs $15k/year or more; if you never use it, in 20 years you will have

wasted $300k, much more adjusted for inflation and capital gains.

It's much better to keep the money in a health savings account and use

it if - and only *if* - you need it.

Well, here's the thing, it's a waste of money while you are healthy, but if you haven't bought into a health care plan while you are healthy as things have stood forever, you couldn't get health insurance when you get sick. Now while some people never, ever get sick, most people get sick in the 'bloody expensive to treat' category as they get into old age. Fiscal prudence would be, as I say to have a policy that covers you for the big number treatments and let you pay out of pocket for anything that doesn't fit that category.

[mawilson 2,133]

No? Do you understand risk analysis?

Indeed, risk analysis may lead you to conclude that not buying insurance is the

fiscally prudent thing to do. Or not - depending on the risk factors (family

history of illness etc.)

[Ban Hammer 13,445]

State of mind? Buying insurance is fiscally prudent, people who have a lot of money are fiscally prudent, not spendthrifts . To imagine that you can pay out of pocket for health care and save money all through life is a delusion, that's got nothing to do with guesswork.

it may be "fiscally prudent" for you. your situation does not apply to everyone. nor does it sound like you've ever been in a position where you can bargain because you are paying cash.

[SMR 368]

How does that save you money? I would imagine there are policies that kick in once a procedure hits a certain amount so they can save on the cheap stuff and still be protected when health issues hit the large numbers.

You are ignoring the fact that many people, even at an advanced age don't need expensive procedures. That is how insurance companies stay in business, by collecting the premiums from these people. So, if you end up in the group of people that doesn't need expensive procedures, this will save you a lot of money.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Unless you have negotiated your costs, you wouldn't know whether carrying health insurance is fiscally prudent. Claims that it is or that most millionaires have it are merely conjecture.

[Peikko 1,575]

Indeed, risk analysis may lead you to conclude that not buying insurance is the

fiscally prudent thing to do. Or not - depending on the risk factors (family

history of illness etc.)

Talking of family history of illness and congenital defects, is anyone going to tackle the question of how those who must use health care, some from birth to achieve any form of quality of life, if not life itself should be treated to afford them equality of opportunity as 'right to life' is supposed to be one of the basic rights according to the famed constitution?

[Peikko 1,575]

You are ignoring the fact that many people, even at an advanced age don't need expensive procedures. That is how insurance companies stay in business, by collecting the premiums from these people. So, if you end up in the group of people that doesn't need expensive procedures, this will save you a lot of money.

Fiscal prudence covers the 'ifs' based on probability. Such a policy that only kicks in when care become expensive would cover all the bases.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You are ignoring the fact that many people, even at an advanced age don't need expensive procedures. That is how insurance companies stay in business, by collecting the premiums from these people. So, if you end up in the group of people that doesn't need expensive procedures, this will save you a lot of money.

Health insurance is essentially the advance financing of future health costs. If one pays cash for pretty much anything, a car or real estate, for example, rather than financing it, your costs are lower overall.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You are ignoring the fact that many people, even at an advanced age don't need expensive procedures. That is how insurance companies stay in business, by collecting the premiums from these people. So, if you end up in the group of people that doesn't need expensive procedures, this will save you a lot of money.

This is why I'm a fan of HSAs.... It's still YOUR money at the end of the day and not theirs.

[SMR 368]

Talking of family history of illness and congenital defects, is anyone going to tackle the question of how those who must use health care, some from birth to achieve any form of quality of life, if not life itself should be treated to afford them equality of opportunity as 'right to life' is supposed to be one of the basic rights according to the famed constitution?

You fail on a couple levels. The right to life is in the Declaration of Independence but is never mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution states that the government cannot deprive anyone of life, etc. But that is very different than guaranteeing a right to life.

Your second fail comes because I already responded to this. Rights are not something that the government has to provide. They are something you have that the government can't take away.

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

The Constitution doesn't say States can't leave the Union.

But I'm still trying to find where it says people must buy health insurance from private companies?

You stated earlier that the 9th and 10th Amendments give states the right to secede.

As for individual mandates - this whole thread is filled with quotes from constitutional scholars giving their legal opinion on the manner. For a worthy explanation that covers both sides, read post #46.

[SMR 368]

Fiscal prudence covers the 'ifs' based on probability. Such a policy that only kicks in when care become expensive would cover all the bases.

Interestingly, such policies are now banned.