The Constitutionality of Individual Mandates

[Dan T 8]

No, you still wouldn't be covered.

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.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Stevie, we all know that you want to emphsize scholars who agree with you, but there are many who don't.

Tell me. If the goverment actually has the power to force you to buy a private product it endorses for your own good, does it conversely also have the power to prevent you from buying a private product it doesn't like for your own good?

[Ban Hammer 13,445]

Stevie, we all know that you want to emphsize scholars who agree with you, but there are many who don't.

Tell me. If the goverment actually has the power to force you to buy a private product it endorses for your own good, does it conversely also have the power to prevent you from buying a private product it doesn't like for your own good?

[mawilson 2,133]

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Stevie should have some experience with this. Cali is outlawing certain kinds of light bulbs and HD tvs, to start.

[Scott & Lai 12]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

C.S. Lewis

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Stevie should have some experience with this. Cali is outlawing certain kinds of light bulbs and HD tvs, to start.

Actually the enviromental bill signed by GW Bush in 2007 BANS/makes illegal the Incandescent light bulb in 2012... so Cali isn't the only one...

Most people still don't know this :/

[Obama 2012 1,714]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

C.S. Lewis

"Hell is paved with good intentions." -Samuel Johnson

[Peikko 1,575]

the constitution also doesn't guarantee equal outcomes for all. If someone pursues happiness by suceeding beyond others by merit and hard work, why should the government be allowed to "equalize" them down to the level of those who don't put forth the kind of effort that brings the same kind of sucess? That someone who doesn't need nor want government assistance to pay their medical costs, doesn't have a deficit of resources is still forced to buy a product that will do nothing for them that the Feds mandate it to do - save costs, insure coverage - is already paying taxes to help with the costs of programs others need. This mandate gives the government the power to usurp personal income for personal insurance as a means of social engineering alone.If this is allowed, then there is no end to what the government can force you to purchase, or prohibit from purchasing, at government whim.

No one is trying to take all the money away from the rich. All that is required is a minimum contribution in order to create a society that provides for equality of opportunity. Are you trying to suggest that those who are less healthy than others, those who require medical attention and care are simply making less effort than those who enjoy good health and all that is needed is for them to "try a bit harder'? I'll be sure to pass that message along.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Obama 2012 1,714]

No one is trying to take all the money away from the rich. All that is required is a minimum contribution in order to create a society that provides for equality of opportunity. Are you trying to suggest that those who are less healthy than others, those who require medical attention and care are simply making less effort than those who enjoy good health and all that is needed is for them to "try a bit harder'? I'll be sure to pass that message along.

It's all relative to the individual.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Actually the enviromental bill signed by GW Bush in 2007 BANS/makes illegal the Incandescent light bulb in 2012... so Cali isn't the only one...

Most people still don't know this :/

I do, so I bought up a gross of incandescent bulbs. I mentioned Cali coz Stevie lives there,

Edited March 24, 2010 by Sofiyya

[SMR 368]

I fail? What sort of idiotic response is that? I don't care if you think my arguments fail or not, what I care about is people who have congenital defects given access to health the same as those who are born perfect. Does that not bother you that some people have to pay because they are born different and not because they have done something wrong?

Yes, you failed to read my response to your question and instead repeated your question. Now you have done so twice.

Your question essentially boils down to "Does it not bother you that life isn't fair?" Although this is a yes or no question, a yes or no really doesn't suffice. I think at some level, everyone is bothered by this. I could elaborate on that on a lot of different levels, but any reasonable response would include my beliefs on the afterlife, supreme powers, previous lives, etc. I doubt there is much point to going into such things here.

But your question is not the central one here. The real question is, does the government have the ability and/or responsibility to try and make life fair? My answer is a definite "no." The government is completely unable to really create an objective definition of fair. Moreover, the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to do so and specifically states that the federal government cannot do anything that the Constitution does not expressly give it authority to do.

[Scott & Lai 12]

the Constitution ... specifically states that the federal government cannot do anything that the Constitution does not expressly give it authority to do.

That ship sailed long ago...

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, you failed to read my response to your question and instead repeated your question. Now you have done so twice.

Your question essentially boils down to "Does it not bother you that life isn't fair?" Although this is a yes or no question, a yes or no really doesn't suffice. I think at some level, everyone is bothered by this. I could elaborate on that on a lot of different levels, but any reasonable response would include my beliefs on the afterlife, supreme powers, previous lives, etc. I doubt there is much point to going into such things here.

But your question is not the central one here. The real question is, does the government have the ability and/or responsibility to try and make life fair? My answer is a definite "no." The government is completely unable to really create an objective definition of fair. Moreover, the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to do so and specifically states that the federal government cannot do anything that the Constitution does not expressly give it authority to do.

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.

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

Stevie, we all know that you want to emphsize scholars who agree with you, but there are many who don't.

Tell me. If the goverment actually has the power to force you to buy a private product it endorses for your own good, does it conversely also have the power to prevent you from buying a private product it doesn't like for your own good?

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.