On the Constitutionality of Individual Mandates

Nov 19, 2009 10:16

Here's George F. Will, pointing out that it is unprecedented to use the interstate commerce clause to force someone to engage in a commercial activity (in this case buying health insurance). Regulating transactions that already exist (forcing you to by car insurance if you choose to drive), we do. Forcing entirely new transactions on people? ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 16

sonofzeal November 19 2009, 18:47:51 UTC
I'm with you; let's not force people to purchase individual private health care plans. Let's do it single payer and maximize the efficiency of the system.

Reply

boopsce November 20 2009, 06:52:13 UTC
This.

Reply


ranethor November 19 2009, 21:36:33 UTC
This health care bill really just scares me. Not only will they force you to buy health insurance, they'll force you to buy plans that the government deems worthy... if I can't afford to buy it, which is likely (I read somewhere that the subsidies for poor families wouldn't start until 2013... can anyone confirm or deny that?), I'll be charged a fine. And if I can't pay that, which is also likely, I could end up in prison.

I'm tired of lawmakers shredding the Constitution.

Reply

ceallaighgirl November 19 2009, 23:42:19 UTC
In Canada, we just pay taxes through the nose for it all instead and private insurance is pretty much illegal. It's totally awesome. Talk about no options.

Reply

sonofzeal November 20 2009, 07:20:53 UTC
How large are the taxes used to pay for health care in Canada? All of the data I've seen shows that Canada spends a lower percentage of its GDP on health care than the US.

Reply

jonsonite November 20 2009, 07:29:16 UTC
I'm willing to pay a premium to avoid government control. However, there are ways to lower that percentage gap that don't involve more government control. Some non-trivial portion of our higher costs is due to liability issues--doctors charge more to pay for their sky-high malpractice insurance premiums. That problem can be fixed to lower costs without single-payer or individual mandate.

Reply


zabrahl November 20 2009, 09:42:26 UTC
I don't quite get how forcing you to buy car insurance is different. Is it because you can choose to not have a car? I'd point out that that isn't realistically true for some who don't have access to good public transit...

Reply

jonsonite November 20 2009, 17:13:43 UTC
Think about it this way: It's like the difference between having to have a driver's license and having to have a ID badge.

"Papers, please."

Reply

zabrahl November 20 2009, 23:49:17 UTC
Well, I suppose the Amish shouldn't be expected to have health insurance.

But shouldn't this be like court lawyers? If you can't afford insurance you get one provided by the government unless you refuse it. But I guess that's the public option people are wanting and not getting.

What I find more upsetting than the threat to our way of life, which I don't see being even slightly noticeable, is the way all the information coming to me from the left is vague spinelessly worded hype and everything from the right seems to be hysteria inducing propaganda with no reasoning shared to convince me of anything other than that they can't stand the fact that they aren't in power anymore.

I'm getting more and more fed up with both parties, but I'm too apathetic (and unimportant) to play Mercutio.

Reply

jonsonite November 21 2009, 00:37:25 UTC
There's plenty of people who share a conservative view on healthcare who don't care any more for the Republicans than the Democrats--like me!

Just as there are plenty of people in favor of the proposals who have principled and reasonable arguments--like Rival!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up