Mandated Healthcare--Unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by Anthony Gregory, Christian Science Monitor

Can Obama force you to buy health insurance?
Nothing in the Constitution allows the individual mandate he proposes.

Oakland, Calif. - Many liberals lambasted the Bush administration on detention policy and warrantless surveillance, often arguing that they violated the Constitution. Now the Obama administration is pushing ahead with plans to require every American to purchase health insurance.

Doesn't that also violate the Constitution?

The Constitution created a federal government limited to its enumerated powers. Everything Congress is allowed to do is spelled out in Article I. The 10th Amendment makes it explicit: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Nothing in the Constitution authorizes any federal involvement in healthcare – yet Congress may soon require everyone in America to buy insurance.

Admittedly, the Supreme Court has ruled that the language empowering Congress to "regulate Commerce ... among the several States" applies to an ever-broadening range of activity. The "commerce" clause was originally intended to prohibit interstate tariffs, a supposed problem under the Articles of Confederation.

Ironically, consumers today cannot freely buy health insurance from across state lines. If there's any legitimate application of the "commerce" clause, it would be to overturn such restrictions. But the framers never gave Congress the general power to regulate industry.

In the 1935 case Schecter v. United States, involving farming regulations, the court unanimously struck down parts of the National Industrial Recovery Act for overstepping Congress's commerce power. Liberal Justice Louis Brandeis informed one of President Franklin Roosevelt's aides to "tell the president that we're not going to let this government centralize everything."

The next year, the court ruled in Butler v. United States that elements of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which inflated food prices by restricting supply, violated the 10th Amendment.

After FDR threatened to pack the court with additional judges friendly to the New Deal, the court lost its spine. In 1937, it upheld the National Labor Relations Act – which greatly expanded the power of labor unions and greatly diminished the freedom of contract – under the "commerce" clause.

In Wickard v. Filburn (1942) the justices even upheld the conviction of a man for growing too much wheat on his farm. The court reasoned that even wheat grown solely for private consumption ultimately had an impact on the economy, turning the "commerce" clause into a regulatory rubber stamp.

The "commerce" clause is now interpreted very broadly. Although in United States v. Lopez (1995) the court struck down a firearms law that exceeded Congress's commerce power, it ruled 10 years later in Gonzales v. Raich that federal drug policy overrode California's medical marijuana laws, despite the 10th Amendment.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented: "If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers … have no meaningful limits." Indeed, practically nothing is beyond the pale anymore.

Then there is the privacy issue. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Roe v. Wade (1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) the court found reproductive freedom to be guaranteed as an implicit right to privacy. In Casey, the court reasoned that abortion entailed "the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy," and that such choices are "central to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment."

Why wouldn't this apply to the right to decide whether to buy health insurance?

Other constitutional concerns emerge. The mass collection of medical data likely to occur under proposed reforms threatens the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." Making it a crime not to buy insurance, and then forcing people to show they have not bought it, arguably clashes with the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

The Ninth Amendment reserves to individuals all rights not expressly denied by the Constitution. Nothing in the document curtails our right not to purchase health insurance. And being forced to fill out forms to apply for insurance is in tension with the 13th Amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude."

The quality we could expect from government care may also raise constitutional questions. In early August, a federal panel ordered California to release 40,000 inmates because the health services were so strained, causing one unnecessary prisoner death per week, so as to render the treatment "unconstitutional." If we all become captive consumers under federal mandate, could we not similarly argue that any shoddiness in our mandated health services is an unconstitutional burden?

Those who find such constitutional arguments unconvincing are often quick to invoke them against policies they oppose. Similarly, some of today's critics of President Obama and national healthcare brandish the Constitution as a holy document, but were silent when President George W.Bush trampled its many limitations on executive power, and even signed an expansion of Medicare.

A newfound, consistent, and lasting respect for the Constitution, across the ideological spectrum, would renew the health of our republic like nothing else.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0914/p09s01-coop.html

Agree? Disagree? Do you have some rebuttals of the arguments Gregory brings up? Discuss.

Well, in my state, in order to possess a drivers licence, you must show proof of auto insurance. Of course, this is slightly different, because you don't have to get a licence, but you cant stop being alive.

So, I don't think you should be forced into it, I just think you should be able to be covered. So, it really doesn't matter, because under a public option, wouldn't you always be covered?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Well, in my state, in order to possess a drivers licence, you must show proof of auto insurance. Of course, this is slightly different, because you don't have to get a licence, but you cant stop being alive.

So, I don't think you should be forced into it, I just think you should be able to be covered. So, it really doesn't matter, because under a public option, wouldn't you always be covered?

Well, a news article earlier today on Fox News (yes yes yes, I know) said that the public option has failed in the Senate, I believe it was. (If not the Senate, then the House). So, the public option may not be in the plan at all.

my Grandparents pay $900 per month for health care thats too damn much, heath care needs to be affordable. It is NOT right now.

Originally Posted by Lunchbox*

Well, a news article earlier today on Fox News (yes yes yes, I know) said that the public option has failed in the Senate, I believe it was. (If not the Senate, then the House). So, the public option may not be in the plan at all.

It failed the Senate Finance Committee on a vote of 13-8 I believe, with five Democrats including Chairman Max Bacus Voting against it, which is no surprise as he receives more money from the Health lobby than anyone else in the Senate. Now it's possible that the Dem's will try to put an amendment when it finally gets into the senate but I doubt it will pass as the Dem's seem to lack a spine.

In any case the Public option does not guarantee everyone will be covered automatically as you have to be within a certain range of Income, and Social Status to qualify leaving many families between being able to afford Health care, and the Public option. Of course they are proposing Reimbursements for people in that range but there are critics on the left who say many people will be left footing the bill. It's a step forward, but hardly universal, and that is before the senate gets a hold on it and they like to gut anything that could be useful.

Sound confusing? It should, despite the Dem's super majority they still cave to Republican Pressure and send out a half-assed bill. It's kinda sad. Frankly you guys should go single payer like Canada and get it over with.

Originally Posted by Fri yoont vee doo

my Grandparents pay $900 per month for health care thats too damn much, heath care needs to be affordable. It is NOT right now.

...Okaaay, but that's not what this thread's about.

And wow, that sucks for your grandparents. That really sucks. I'm sorry.

Originally Posted by Lunchbox*

Well, a news article earlier today on Fox News (yes yes yes, I know) said that the public option has failed in the Senate, I believe it was. (If not the Senate, then the House). So, the public option may not be in the plan at all.

Funny, as a vote hasn't been held yet...

So, it really doesn't matter, because under a public option, wouldn't you always be covered?

No, you're thinking of a single payer health insurance system. A 'public option' is no different than a private option other than that it's indirectly run by the people. (but self-sustaining after the initial investment)

It still costs money, and you still need to apply for it, it's just that it will drive down the cost of all health insurance, as it will offer competition to private health insurers.

Personally, I'd MUCH rather have a single payer system like that of medicare where we pay into the public insurance system via taxes, and all medical procedures are automatically covered free of charge, assuming that the individual in question doesn't manually opt out of the single payer coverage.

I find it strange 65% of the American Public supports the public option but it doesn't have a chance in hell of getting through the Senate or the House.

Originally Posted by 8bit

No, you're thinking of a single payer health insurance system. A 'public option' is no different than a private option other than that it's indirectly run by the people. (but self-sustaining after the initial investment)

It still costs money, and you still need to apply for it, it's just that it will drive down the cost of all health insurance, as it will offer competition to private health insurers.

Personally, I'd MUCH rather have a single payer system like that of medicare where we pay into the public insurance system via taxes, and all medical procedures are automatically covered free of charge, assuming that the individual in question doesn't manually opt out of the single payer coverage.

To be honest, I don't know as much as I should about the public option, only that it's meant to increase competition and be affordable.

What would the comparison be between the public option costs and the current insurance company costs?

Originally Posted by 8bit

Funny, as a vote hasn't been held yet...

It was the Senate Finance Committee I was referring to that voted down the Public Option.

Wait a minuet, I thought that people still had a choice on whether or not they want to use free health care. I thought you still have the option to use a private company.

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pong

Wait a minuet, I thought that people still had a choice on whether or not they want to use free health care. I thought you still have the option to use a private company.

The public Option would not be free, one would still have to pay into the plan to receive the benefits. it would run as a Private plan only it would be run by the Government to push the market down.

And yes they would have a choice to use the Public or Private plans (Assuming they qualified for the public options, as I outlined above) however, according to the proposed bill every American would be forced to have some sort of health insurance or face a penalty charge like not having car insurance.

Originally Posted by Puck

The public Option would not be free, one would still have to pay into the plan to receive the benefits. it would run as a Private plan only it would be run by the Government to push the market down.

And yes they would have a choice to use the Public or Private plans (Assuming they qualified for the public options, as I outlined above) however, according to the proposed bill every American would be forced to have some sort of health insurance or face a penalty charge like not having car insurance.

One problem is, car insurance is based on the possession of a license, whereas healthcare insurance is mandatory and something you can't avoid. I mean, you can't stop being alive. So, there is no way not to get penalized if you don't want it.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

One problem is, car insurance is based on the possession of a license, whereas healthcare insurance is mandatory and something you can't avoid. I mean, you can't stop being alive. So, there is no way not to get penalized if you don't want it.

Well, they could make it illegal for doctors to provide emergency procedures for people who can't pay. But since that won't happen, mandatory insurance is a reasonable way to prevent people from being unable to pay, thereby ensuring sustainable healthcare.

I don't believe that anyone should be "forced" into Obama's plan, however, some people would highly benefit from coverage.