Thread: Individual mandate is unconstitutional...

Originally Posted by Moonglow

I never used a condom

I can see the concept of metaphor is lost on you.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Glad you escaped. So did i.

I may pay a penalty if i choose not to purchase it, yes, this is true. Kinda like I can stay out of jail if i choose not to steal...

When your only options are "Do X or face punishment Y", are you REALLY making a free choice?

If you are a smoker, you know it is killing you. Is smoking REALLY a free choice for you?

Originally Posted by EricOKC

I can see the concept of metaphor is lost on you.

i can see the use of humor is lost on you

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

This serves no purpose for a society. "Letting people decide for themselves" just doesn't work.

Did until about 70 years ago.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Hey, I decided 75 mph through a school zone is OK. Let the kids decide for themselves if they want to cross the street.

SLIGHTLY different...

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Hey, I decided I am going to see how far and how fast I can go with only two wheel nuts per tire!

Go for it. Nothing is stopping you.

Make sure your insurance premiums are current though, because you will be responsible for any damage you cause.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Hey, Johnny has chicken pox. So what. He's going to school. What do I care if the other kids catch it.

Again, different.

In all of those cases, you are willfully and intentionally exposing others to direct harm. If I refuse to purchase health insurance, and instead choose to risk having to cover my own bills, tell me again EXACTLY how that harms you...or anyone else for that matter.

And no - saying i MIGHT default on the payments is not a valid reason.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

If you are a smoker, you know it is killing you. Is smoking REALLY a free choice for you?

Yes. Next stupid question?

Nobody is forcing someone to smoke, are they? Are there legal penalties if you do not smoke a pack a day?

There is no equivalency whatsoever between an individual decision to consume a product, no matter how addictive, and being obligated under penalty of law to purchase a product.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Glad you escaped. So did i.

I may pay a penalty if i choose not to purchase it, yes, this is true. Kinda like I can stay out of jail if i choose not to steal...

When your only options are "Do X or face punishment Y", are you REALLY making a free choice?

That's what Shay's rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion found to be true.

Originally Posted by Moonglow

That's what Shay's rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion found to be true.

No, not quite. What they found to be true is that yes, the government CAN mandate a tax on certain goods.

Do you have a single example of an obligatory purchase of something? Not about unpopular taxes, not about something involving a private contract between you and another private entity, but a purchase required by the government merely for being alive, for which you will face a legal penalty if you cannot afford it?

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Hey, I decided 75 mph through a school zone is OK. Let the kids decide for themselves if they want to cross the street.

Hey, I decided I am going to see how far and how fast I can go with only two wheel nuts per tire!

Hey, Johnny has chicken pox. So what. He's going to school. What do I care if the other kids catch it.

Dick, i think you know I'm not arguing for "decide for yourself" in every imaginable scenario. For certain things, conformity is required and it's the proper role of government to enforce it. But I believe that's only justified in cases where "go your own way" is truly intolerable. Dictating behavior for the convenience of the majority is wrong, especially when it substantially restricts the freedom of the minority. It's even worse when it's done as an obvious grant to powerful industries or corporations.

Necessary and Proper Clause Definition

The necessary and proper clause definition covered in Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18 is as follows:

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Necessary and Proper Clause Summary

After going through the definition, let us have a look at the necessary and proper clause summary. The necessary and proper clause is also known as the Elastic Clause, the Basket Clause, the Coefficient Clause and the Sweeping Clause. The US Constitution places special powers and duties in the hands of the US Congress. The necessary and proper clause allows the Government of the United States to make all laws that that are necessary as well as proper.

The interpretation of the necessary and proper clause was under storm. The Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson debated about the correct interpretation of the clause. According to Hamilton this clause helped the Congress exercise their powers related to many implied powers. Implied powers include all those powers that are implied in the Constitution and not stated explicitly. Jefferson argued that one could not allow too much power to rest in the hands of one branch of the government. He said 'necessary' should mean 'essential' in this case. Jefferson's interpretation made the state government more stronger, whereas, Hamilton's interpretation helped in making the central government more strong.

The necessary and proper clause summary was given with the help of a landmark US Supreme Court case. This case was the McCulloch V. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) that helped explain what is the necessary and proper clause. In 1791, the First Bank of the United States was established. However, it failed by 1811 as it did not gain the necessary support from the Congress. A new bank was established in 1816 that had many branches in many states. The Bank of the United States cautious policies were not welcomed by many state chartered banks. The state of Maryland imposed a tax on the bank's operation. The cashier of Baltimore's branch James McCulloch, refused to pay the tax and the case went to court.

The US Supreme court then decided after careful considerations that the act of Congress could not be undermined by any state. On the basis of necessary and proper clause, it was stated that the state governments were subordinate to the federal government. This is all about what is necessary and proper clause. It is an important clause that helps the Congress exercise the implied powers as and when necessary and proper

What is the Necessary and Proper Clause

Maybe this will help you see how the Healthcare law is not unconstitutional

Originally Posted by Moonglow

What is the Necessary and Proper Clause

Maybe this will help you see how the Healthcare law is not unconstitutional

Unfortunately, for you, that clause in no way supports it. Neither does the case law you cite.

All laws "necessary and proper" applies to situations in which the federal government is authorized to legislate. As it is specifically granted the authority to coin money, any necessary and proper legislation surrounding said coinage and value, as well as banking regulations, would apply.

In the case of health care, there is no authority granted to the federal government to enter into the picture. Additionally, it is granted no authority to dictate what someone must spend their money on. In short, it violates, among other things, the 5th, 9th and 10th amendments blatantly.

Arguably it could be said it violates the 1st and 4th Amendments as well - but I'll admit, the 4th is a stretch.

Perhaps you could identify for us the exact wording in the US Constitution granting the federal government the authority to directly order an individual to purchase something? Or even the portion granting the federal government the authority to enter the insurance business?

It isn't that hard to read - and you dont even need to read all of it. Start here:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

That is ALL Congress is allowed to do. PERIOD.

Can we separate the discussion in to two points?

First, the individual mandate.

Second, everything else.

If the Individual mandate went away, could you be OK with the rest as being a baseline from which to start?

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Can we separate the discussion in to two points?

First, the individual mandate.

Second, everything else.

If the Individual mandate went away, could you be OK with the rest as being a baseline from which to start?

No, because simply put, Congress has no authority to dictate health care policies or insurance business practices.

You want a baseline? Fine - remove the federal government from the mix entirely. Hell son, that alone would reduce costs by probably 50%.

It is insane to believe that by adding yet one more layer of bureaucracy and complexity that you can somehow make something more efficient and less expensive.

Originally Posted by wooyarn

The second part I completely agree with.

As for the first, I could be wrong, but don't the ER's have paperwork that people fill out when the enter. They provide names, address, illness, and insurance company.

A nurse can do a quick check and if it's just a cold or something non-life threatening and they don't have insurance then tell them they need to put up some money to see a Dr. or make an appointment with their family Dr. if they have one.

ER does have forms asking for those. However, in one thread, perhaps this one, the law requiring any person are entitled to life saving treatment at any ER with not restrictions on ability to pay. Until the doctor is seen, it's difficult to determine what is or isn't life threatening.

End result, most people going to the ERA, are seen by a doctor. If there is no insurance, everyone else pays.