Thread: Individual mandate is unconstitutional...

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

So, in your opinion, if someone cant prove they have insurance they should just be left there, littering the highway?

Actually I would prefer if they checked voter ID cards as well and denied care to Democrats, but, basically yes or perhaps a church or charitable organization could be found willing to help. I have no desire to see anyone die from a lack of competent medical care, but I see no constitutional way for the federal government to force others to pay for it.

Originally Posted by Ernie S.

Actually I would prefer if they checked voter ID cards as well and denied care to Democrats, but, basically yes or perhaps a church or charitable organization could be found willing to help. I have no desire to see anyone die from a lack of competent medical care, but I see no constitutional way for the federal government to force others to pay for it.

If your only real objection is the constitutionality of it then why not rely on the general welfare clauses? There is a lot of discussion on these clauses, and a lot of differing opinions, One can find plenty of company, what ever choice one makes.

My own attitude is that we're all in this together, like it or not. We sink or swim together, as a family. We do the best we can for all of us, not just for the favored few. It does not make me a better person by denying basics to my fellow travelers. Its not a zero sum game where the only way I can do well is by making someone else do badly.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

If your only real objection is the constitutionality of it

That isnt a small objection my friend.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

then why not rely on the general welfare clauses?

Because they do not apply.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

There is a lot of discussion on these clauses, and a lot of differing opinions, One can find plenty of company, what ever choice one makes.

My own attitude is that we're all in this together, like it or not. We sink or swim together, as a family. We do the best we can for all of us, not just for the favored few. It does not make me a better person by denying basics to my fellow travelers. Its not a zero sum game where the only way I can do well is by making someone else do badly.

That may be YOUR attitude, but who are you to force your attitude on others? Nobody is saying YOU cannot choose to voluntarily give your money to assist others. What they are saying is they don't want to be forced to give theirs.

Originally Posted by dblack

I know that's the accepted interpretation, but it never made any sense to me. The taxation power doesn't say anything about spending. It doesn't even imply it.

The power to tax does imply the power to spend; it makes no sense to even have a power to tax if the government isn't going to spend the money. I mean, if Uncle Sam is going to take my tax dollars and stick them under a rock somewhere, wait a minute -- I can put it to better use myself, thanks just the same.

It's very explicitly granting the power to tax, with constraints on the reasons for doing so (to make it clear that government couldn't just tax fatten up its coffers willy-nilly).

Reasons for taxing = reasons for spending, or more exactly what the money can be spent on. "To pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" -- the fact is that taxing accomplishes none of these things. Only spending does. To take the simplest and most straightforward of the three: the government owes money. It levies a tax. It now has money -- but the debt remains unpaid. It spends some money that it levied as a tax -- now the debt is paid.

See what I'm saying? Same applies to providing for the common defense and general welfare. Laying and collecting taxes does not create an army or navy. Spending the monies so collected does. Et cetera.

No one has ever denied that the power to tax implies the power to spend, not even James Madison. What Madison did state -- in which opinion he is alone, and revised it himself later in his presidency -- is that this first enumerated power is not separate, but intended only to empower taxing and spending for the purpose of exercising the other enumerated powers.

But the reality is that the other enumerated powers are not limited to spending money. All of them do require spending money, but they require other powers as well.

However -- none of that means the individual mandate is constitutional. The Court has already ruled that the tax and spend power can't be used as a back door to unauthorized regulation. The only way the individual mandate can be constitutional is if it's authorized by the regulation of commerce clause, not the taxation clause. I'm not at all sure in my own opinion about that. I could argue it either way.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

The power to tax does imply the power to spend; it makes no sense to even have a power to tax if the government isn't going to spend the money. I mean, if Uncle Sam is going to take my tax dollars and stick them under a rock somewhere, wait a minute -- I can put it to better use myself, thanks just the same.

Yeah.. No offense, but I've heard all this before, and it's not compelling. It sounds "reaching", and like weak rationalizations to justify radically expanding the role of the federal government. Madison wasn't alone, pretty much only Hamilton went for the "implied spending power" exploit - and then only long after he'd convinced everyone to sign on. In fact, he explicitly argued against the liberal interpretation when he was still selling the constitution. Only later, when he saw the opportunity to create a strong imperialistic government that might some day rival Great Britain, did he start making the general welfare argument.

Anyway, the argument gets tedious fast, so I'm willing to drop it. Suffice it to say that the bankers and industrialists who desired a worldwide empire (and a compliant, consumerist society) got their wish. I think it was a mistake to give in to them so easily.

However -- none of that means the individual mandate is constitutional. The Court has already ruled that the tax and spend power can't be used as a back door to unauthorized regulation. The only way the individual mandate can be constitutional is if it's authorized by the regulation of commerce clause, not the taxation clause. I'm not at all sure in my own opinion about that. I could argue it either way.

All they have to do is repackage it as a tax "incentive". I'm sure they're working on a way to do that now without the need to vote again. In any case, I have no confidence at all that the Republicans will vote to repeal, as they are just as eager to create a stronger federal government (to better serve their corporate sponsors) as the Democrats are.

I'm hoping that this will begin the toppling of health care altogether. Health care isn't mandated in the constitution. And no, the general welfare clause and commerce clause are not proof that it is constitutional. In fact, the commerce clause actually grants the people be allowed to choose how they wish to participate in the health care system if at all. The government can't force the citizens to conduct commerce if they don't want to.

Originally Posted by RRAHH

I'm hoping that this will begin the toppling of health care altogether. Health care isn't mandated in the constitution. And no, the general welfare clause and commerce clause are not proof that it is constitutional. In fact, the commerce clause actually grants the people be allowed to choose how they wish to participate in the health care system if at all. The government can't force the citizens to conduct commerce if they don't want to.

That is an opinion, and you are certainly welcome to it. But it is an opinion, and therefore just as valid (but not more so) as any other citizen's opinion.

Originally Posted by dblack

Personal responsibility has nothing at all to do with the mandate to give our money to insurance companies. It's sort of disappointing that so many Democrats can't get that. They go on and on about the evils of corporate influence on government and then write a bill that basically makes us all indentured servants to the insurance companies. Nice job.

The personal responsibility argument coming from statists is hilarious in its hypocrisy. You want to declare a baseline that says everyone else is responsible for my health care, and then accuse me of irresponsibility if I don't kow-tow to the state (and its corporate benefactors) for a so-called "right" I never asked for. Gimme a break.

No, I think it allows a vast majority of people to now have a stronger negotiating stance, as proved through the actions of the bill.

The insurance companies are forced to put .80 cents of every dollar they make now back into direct health care services.

We're actually beginning the movement now that is knocking on the door of one basic gov't insurance option that covers everyone in a basic way and will allow us to essentially lay out the terms and conditions of what we pay and how we pay it. Much simpler and less costly than the entire private payment system that exists now.

This case isn't going to win in the upper courts. I was reading on the conservative blog the Volokh Conspiracy about Orin Kerr's statement about Judge Hudson's verdict, and he's very clear that the judgment is in error.

The Volokh Conspiracy The Significant Error in Judge Hudson’s Opinion

Originally Posted by dblack

All they have to do is repackage it as a tax "incentive". I'm sure they're working on a way to do that now without the need to vote again. In any case, I have no confidence at all that the Republicans will vote to repeal, as they are just as eager to create a stronger federal government (to better serve their corporate sponsors) as the Democrats are.

Don't worry, Republicans will vote to repeal (NYT - Just one ruling...) :

In Washington, Congressional Republicans are planning a symbolic vote to repeal the measure when they take control of the House of Representatives next month, and are vowing to chip away at it through financial cuts. Republicans say Judge Hudson’s decision provides a legal underpinning for such efforts.

Hoping on the Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional looks more or less like gambling : nobody really knows what the result will be and there seems to be alternatives to keep the law afloat. A symbolic vote is... amusing but that's all. The only safe way - instead of just waiting - will be financial cuts, and that's where one should wait and see if republicans will keep their word (which they most proably will, with a result worth of a government).

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

47,000,000 uninsured would be a really good reason, and then add in the under-insureds, and you have lots and lots of good reasons to want to dump a program which is in stress and certainly looks like it is dying.

Have you ever looked into WHY they are uninsured?

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

If your only real objection is the constitutionality of it then why not rely on the general welfare clauses? There is a lot of discussion on these clauses, and a lot of differing opinions, One can find plenty of company, what ever choice one makes.

My own attitude is that we're all in this together, like it or not. We sink or swim together, as a family. We do the best we can for all of us, not just for the favored few. It does not make me a better person by denying basics to my fellow travelers. Its not a zero sum game where the only way I can do well is by making someone else do badly.

If thats what you want, get an amendment passed. You skipped the part where governent has to be by consent. Till then you have no right to force your attitude on the rest of us.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

The insurance companies are forced to put .80 cents of every dollar they make now back into direct health care services.

This has exactly nothing to do with the problem.

We're actually beginning the movement now that is knocking on the door of one basic gov't insurance option that covers everyone in a basic way and will allow us to essentially lay out the terms and conditions of what we pay and how we pay it. Much simpler and less costly than the entire private payment system that exists now.

It's so pathetic to see progressives making this argument - calling the bill a "step in the right direction", when deep down they know it for the corporate giveaway that it is. Anything in the name of partisanship I guess.

This case isn't going to win in the upper courts.

You're probably right. I'll usually put my money on the courts endorsing an expansion of federal power. Especially when it's teamed up with corporate welfare. They love that shit.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

That is an opinion, and you are certainly welcome to it. But it is an opinion, and therefore just as valid (but not more so) as any other citizen's opinion.

And this is a prime example of what happens when entitlement programs become the norm. First, they request it. Then they demand it. Last, they scream for it. Actually, I hardly call my comment an opinion since it's backed by the constitution.