What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Health Insurance Mandate = Privacy Violation

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
56,428
Reaction score
19,008
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
Interesting argument against the constitutionality of the ObamaCare mandate based on privacy rights:

Among the lawsuits filed against Obamacare is a class action in the Southern District of Mississippi. Class representatives, for residents of Mississippi who do not wish to be subject to the health insurance purchase mandate, include State Senator Chris McDaniel and Lt. Governor Phil Bryant. The complaint is available here, inside a post on Andrew Breitbart’s website.

The 29-page complaint contains many legal arguments and case citations. As VC readers know, such extensive legal argument is not mandatory in a complaint, but is permissible. Much of the complaint consists of development of the argument that the power to regulate interstate commerce does not include the power to force people to purchase a product. A few items, however, are particularly notable.

....


In my view, the most interesting paragraph is this one:

"75. Moreover, compelling Plaintiffs to enter into a private contract to purchase insurance from another entity will legally require them to share private and personal information with the contracting party. Specifically, by requiring Plaintiffs to abide by the Act’s individual mandate, Congress is also compelling Plaintiffs to fully disclose past medical conditions, habits and behaviors. Not only will the insurer be privy to all past medical information, Congress’s individual mandate will, by necessity, allow the compelled insurer access to Plaintiffs’ present and future medical information of a confidential nature. If judicially enforceable privacy rights mean anything, then private and confidential medical details certainly merit Constitutional protection. Plaintiffs should not be forced to disclose the most intimate details of their past, present and future medical information."

Indeed, the insurance purchase mandate is considerably more intrusive than other purchase mandates which would become constitutional if the insurance mandate is upheld. For example, if Congress required that every family purchase a General Motors ACDelco automobile battery at least once every 5 years, the mandate would be financially burdensome, but would not necessarily require the disclosure of any private information. In contrast, the insurance mandate is a mandate for the involuntary disclosure of many of the most intimate details about one’s life–and making that disclosure to a corporation that in effect functions as a highly-regulated public utility, and which will turn the information over to the government under certain conditions.[/i]

The Volokh Conspiracy Blog Archive Health insurance mandate as a privacy right violation


The privacy issue may be the money shot to kill this Obamanation.

Where oh where is the ACLU?

:eusa_whistle:
 

Claudette

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
42,219
Reaction score
12,844
Points
2,250
Interesting argument against the constitutionality of the ObamaCare mandate based on privacy rights:

Among the lawsuits filed against Obamacare is a class action in the Southern District of Mississippi. Class representatives, for residents of Mississippi who do not wish to be subject to the health insurance purchase mandate, include State Senator Chris McDaniel and Lt. Governor Phil Bryant. The complaint is available here, inside a post on Andrew Breitbart’s website.

The 29-page complaint contains many legal arguments and case citations. As VC readers know, such extensive legal argument is not mandatory in a complaint, but is permissible. Much of the complaint consists of development of the argument that the power to regulate interstate commerce does not include the power to force people to purchase a product. A few items, however, are particularly notable.

....


In my view, the most interesting paragraph is this one:

"75. Moreover, compelling Plaintiffs to enter into a private contract to purchase insurance from another entity will legally require them to share private and personal information with the contracting party. Specifically, by requiring Plaintiffs to abide by the Act’s individual mandate, Congress is also compelling Plaintiffs to fully disclose past medical conditions, habits and behaviors. Not only will the insurer be privy to all past medical information, Congress’s individual mandate will, by necessity, allow the compelled insurer access to Plaintiffs’ present and future medical information of a confidential nature. If judicially enforceable privacy rights mean anything, then private and confidential medical details certainly merit Constitutional protection. Plaintiffs should not be forced to disclose the most intimate details of their past, present and future medical information."

Indeed, the insurance purchase mandate is considerably more intrusive than other purchase mandates which would become constitutional if the insurance mandate is upheld. For example, if Congress required that every family purchase a General Motors ACDelco automobile battery at least once every 5 years, the mandate would be financially burdensome, but would not necessarily require the disclosure of any private information. In contrast, the insurance mandate is a mandate for the involuntary disclosure of many of the most intimate details about one’s life–and making that disclosure to a corporation that in effect functions as a highly-regulated public utility, and which will turn the information over to the government under certain conditions.[/i]

The Volokh Conspiracy Blog Archive Health insurance mandate as a privacy right violation


The privacy issue may be the money shot to kill this Obamanation.

Where oh where is the ACLU?

:eusa_whistle:

Bo. If you were a terrorist in Gitmo the ACLU would be front and center to defend your sorry ass.

You don't think they want to get involved in defending the Rights of the taxpayers of America do ya??

If they did the progressive left would have a cow doncha know??? LOL
 
OP
boedicca

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
56,428
Reaction score
19,008
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
Boe with an E, s'il te plait :)

And you are correct. The ACLU is more concerned about terrorists at GITMO who are terrorized with indoor plumbing, breakfast cereal, and time outs for prayers than they are about the government forcing us to tell corporations about our personal health histories against our wills.

The silence from our lefty colleagues here is overwhelming.
 

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
Boe with an E, s'il te plait :)

And you are correct. The ACLU is more concerned about terrorists at GITMO who are terrorized with indoor plumbing, breakfast cereal, and time outs for prayers than they are about the government forcing us to tell corporations about our personal health histories against our wills.

The silence from our lefty colleagues here is overwhelming.

Indeed it is. And it s telling as to whom they consider 'friends'. And it isn't the people of this Republic they claim to champion.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top