Questions and comments about individual mandate

[SniperFire]

Sniiper Fire

That's not even remotely related to what he/she said

Sure it is. The only reason 'others are required to pay for it' is the liberal laws force the providers to give away services for free and raise everyone else's costs to compensate.

Ronnie Ray-Gun was a republican.

The laws, and subsequent expansions of it, is a liberal law, regardless of who signed it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Why is it unconstitutional, then?

The Senate is elected to represent their states.

So you think emergency services shouldn't be provided at all? I'm not totally sure, but I thought that was a Ronald Reagan thing.

It forces a contract between an individual and an insurance company with penalties of fines or jail if said individual doesn't comply. No court will uphold a contract through coercion. That applies to any contract, not just healthcare.


Aside from that, I don't see other parts being struck down.

Point of fact, there is no jail time mentioned in the law.

The IRS will collect that penalty if you do not pay it. If you refuse to submit it, more fines will be assessed. Depending on the amount you are delinquet, you can go to jail. But the bigger point is that the mandate forces you into a contract which is unconstitutional.

 

[ladyliberal]

I've noticed and heard that the individual mandate was once called personal responsibility by the Republicans. This is the plan they favored when the country was faced with HillaryCare. In fact, as recently as 2009 Republican Chuck Grassley spoke in favor of the individual mandate, calling it personal responsibility. And yes, at the same time the Democrats were against an individual mandate.

I also notice that SCOTUS is hyper partisan and we all know that the vast majority of the nine justices will vote their party ideals and that is a shame. Perhaps we should have monkeys that throw darts at a dart board pick supreme court justices and we'd get a more bi-partisan panel.

My questions are:

1) If the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it forces all to pay money to a private insurance company then are not all privatization schemes also unconstitutional? (For instance, privatizing Medicare)

2) If the Senate, which is equal representation of all 50 States, voted to approve the individual mandate (which they did) how can anyone claim that the individual mandate is against State's rights?

3) If we are allowed to get health care at the emergency room, then shouldn't we be required to make everyone pay for it?

I would much rather have seen the public option, btw.

1) I'm sure that the justices see the two cases as very different. No one would argue that the federal government couldn't, say, use tax dollars to buy guns and then use them to arm soldiers. In any event, I don't think that the mandate requires purchase from a private entity will be a key legal issue (though I'm no constitutional scholar, so who knows?)

2) I don't find this compelling at all. The court has found that the Senate has unconstitutionally stepped on the Senate's power when it has ceded legislative authority to the executive branch.

3) I don't think we should require everyone to pay for their care directly, since some people can't. This does get at what will probably be the crucial defense of the bill, though: people who don't have at least catastrophic coverage are at least risking becoming a burden on the health care system (which manifestly involves interstate commerce).

A note on "partisan" justices. I think the main way in which the justices reflect partisan ideology is that their judicial philosophies are selected by partisan actors (presidents and senators). I don't think they generally consciously set out to help a political party (although Bush v. Gore does make one wonder).

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Why is it unconstitutional, then?

The Senate is elected to represent their states.

So you think emergency services shouldn't be provided at all? I'm not totally sure, but I thought that was a Ronald Reagan thing.

It forces a contract between an individual and an insurance company with penalties of fines or jail if said individual doesn't comply. No court will uphold a contract through coercion. That applies to any contract, not just healthcare.


Aside from that, I don't see other parts being struck down.

That at least makes sense, though I don't think there is any jail time involved. You can be incarcerated for not paying your taxes, but that is pretty rare.

Yeah, that's correct. It doesn't state jail time in the bill. Incarceration through tax evasion would be jail time and it would have to be substantial.

 

[snakedoc]

I've noticed and heard that the individual mandate was once called personal responsibility by the Republicans. This is the plan they favored when the country was faced with HillaryCare. In fact, as recently as 2009 Republican Chuck Grassley spoke in favor of the individual mandate, calling it personal responsibility. And yes, at the same time the Democrats were against an individual mandate.

I also notice that SCOTUS is hyper partisan and we all know that the vast majority of the nine justices will vote their party ideals and that is a shame. Perhaps we should have monkeys that throw darts at a dart board pick supreme court justices and we'd get a more bi-partisan panel.

My questions are:

1) If the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it forces all to pay money to a private insurance company

That is not why the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

2) If the Senate, which is equal representation of all 50 States, voted to approve the individual mandate (which they did) how can anyone claim that the individual mandate is against State's rights?

The Senate is part of the Federal government, not the State governments.

3) If we are allowed to get health care at the emergency room, then shouldn't we be required to make everyone pay for it?

What you are saying is the liberal laws to force providers to give away their services is fucked up.

I would much rather have seen the public option, btw.

--

Why is it unconstitutional, then?
Because the Government is trying to force you into buying healthcare or be fined for not doing so that seems unconstitutional to me. Do you really want to set a precedent that allows the Government to have this big of a say in the products or services you buy?

The Senate is elected to represent their states.
The Senate is not allowed to overreach it's authority which seems to be the case here.

So you think emergency services shouldn't be provided at all? I'm not totally sure, but I thought that was a Ronald Reagan thing.

Depends on the nature of the emergency.

 

[Vel]

I want to know why anyone thinks it's right to force an employer to either provide health insurance for an employee or be fined. Why should it be the employers responsibility to buy the health insurance policy. If I pay you your wages, why can't you buy your own policy? Can't an employee be trusted to spend their wage wisely?

 

[Ravi]

1) If the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it forces all to pay money to a private insurance company then are not all privatization schemes also unconstitutional? (For instance, privatizing Medicare)

It's not the same. The GOP plan to changed Medicare to a voucher system, would not force anyone to get insurance or care or face a penalty. All the Ryan Voucher Plan would do is have the Federal government reimburse less and less for the services.

2) If the Senate, which is equal representation of all 50 States, voted to approve the individual mandate (which they did) how can anyone claim that the individual mandate is against State's rights?

Senators do not always perfectly represent the rights of their State.

3) If we are allowed to get health care at the emergency room, then shouldn't we be required to make everyone pay for it?

Yes, which is what the Mandate would effectively do, which makes me wonder why so many "conservatives" are against it. The Mandate would hold people personally responsible for their decisions and not allow them (as much) to dump those costs onto society.

If the GOP were truly for "Repeal and Replace" they would offer a law that penalizes people who use ER services and then never pay for them.

I would much rather have seen the public option, btw.

Agreed.

On your first point, it would make us all pay taxes that would eventually go into the private health insurance so I'm not seeing how that is different.

On your second, it doesn't really matter, does it? Senators ARE elected to represent their states.

Okay on your third point.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I want to know why anyone thinks it's right to force an employer to either provide health insurance for an employee or be fined. Why should it be the employers responsibility to buy the health insurance policy. If I pay you your wages, why can't you buy your own policy? Can't an employee be trusted to spend their wage wisely?

I agree. This hurts small business companies. It's impossible to find a group to insure your employees if you are small.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The problem is getting enough people who are young and NOT filing claims to participate. The other side of it is making preventative care really easy and cheap.

We need to open up Medicare as an option to everyone, not just folks over 65, and set the rate you pay for life based on the age you voluntarily join and start paying.

 

[francoHFW]

People who refuse to buy affordable health care are freeloading a-holes. This was always constitutional until it was Obama's "idea". Pure Pubcrappe.

 

[Seawytch]

I want to know why anyone thinks it's right to force an employer to either provide health insurance for an employee or be fined. Why should it be the employers responsibility to buy the health insurance policy. If I pay you your wages, why can't you buy your own policy? Can't an employee be trusted to spend their wage wisely?

Do you not realize that individual policies are considerably more costly than group policies?

Now, if there was a public option available that would give the individuals group rates, that would be something wouldn't it?

It would be even better if we just all got health care and businesses AND individuals didn't have to worry about it.

 

[francoHFW]

This has to be dome federally to be fair, or businesses in some states would be advantaged, at least until the savings kick in.

Ah feg it, we and Obama don't think a mandate is necessary anyway- it's just a good idea anyway- I don't hear Mass companies complaining, even tho that's not as good as ACA. PURE PUBCRAPPE IT ALL IS....

 

[LordBrownTrout]

People who refuse to buy affordable health care are freeloading a-holes. This was always constitutional until it was Obama's "idea". Pure Pubcrappe.

Some may really be unable to afford while others may have enough money to take care of themselves through private pay. Either way, neither should be forced to enter a contract.

 

[SniperFire]

People who refuse to buy affordable health care are freeloading a-holes. This was always constitutional until it was Obama's "idea". Pure Pubcrappe.

Obviously, it was never 'Constitutional' as the Supremes are shitting all over it.

 

[Full-Auto]

People who refuse to buy affordable health care are freeloading a-holes. This was always constitutional until it was Obama's "idea". Pure Pubcrappe.

How much further does the price need to rise, to make it affordable?

 

[Vel]

I want to know why anyone thinks it's right to force an employer to either provide health insurance for an employee or be fined. Why should it be the employers responsibility to buy the health insurance policy. If I pay you your wages, why can't you buy your own policy? Can't an employee be trusted to spend their wage wisely?

I agree. This hurts small business companies. It's impossible to find a group to insure your employees if you are small.

While it does hurt small business, the bigger problem that I see is that suddenly businesses are forced to be their employees keeper. In addition, it is unequal in it's application. It treats different size businesses differently. Why is it fair to make the company that has 51 employees provide insurance but that company that hires 49 people is exempt from the fines. The laws are suppose to treat all equally and this just doesn't.

 

[Vel]

I want to know why anyone thinks it's right to force an employer to either provide health insurance for an employee or be fined. Why should it be the employers responsibility to buy the health insurance policy. If I pay you your wages, why can't you buy your own policy? Can't an employee be trusted to spend their wage wisely?

Do you not realize that individual policies are considerably more costly than group policies?

Now, if there was a public option available that would give the individuals group rates, that would be something wouldn't it?

It would be even better if we just all got health care and businesses AND individuals didn't have to worry about it.

Yes, I'm aware that group policies are cheaper than individual, but that still doesn't answer as to why your healthcare is your employer's responsibility instead of your own.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I want to know why anyone thinks it's right to force an employer to either provide health insurance for an employee or be fined. Why should it be the employers responsibility to buy the health insurance policy. If I pay you your wages, why can't you buy your own policy? Can't an employee be trusted to spend their wage wisely?

I agree. This hurts small business companies. It's impossible to find a group to insure your employees if you are small.

While it does hurt small business, the bigger problem that I see is that suddenly businesses are forced to be their employees keeper. In addition, it is unequal in it's application. It treats different size businesses differently. Why is it fair to make the company that has 51 employees provide insurance but that company that hires 49 people is exempt from the fines. The laws are suppose to treat all equally and this just doesn't.

I'm one hundred percent with you. Businesses, companies, shouldn't even be mandated to provide health insurance. I agree with what you said earlier, pay the employee to find his or her provider.

 

[Vel]

By this way of thinking, perhaps an employer shouldn't give the employees money at all. They can simply purchase those things that they feel are best for the employees. The employer can pay their rent, utilities, groceries and whatever else an employee might be too irresponsible to buy for themselves.

 

[DontBeStupid]

It forces a contract between an individual and an insurance company with penalties of fines or jail if said individual doesn't comply. No court will uphold a contract through coercion. That applies to any contract, not just healthcare.


Aside from that, I don't see other parts being struck down.

Point of fact, there is no jail time mentioned in the law.

The IRS will collect that penalty if you do not pay it. If you refuse to submit it, more fines will be assessed. Depending on the amount you are delinquet, you can go to jail. But the bigger point is that the mandate forces you into a contract which is unconstitutional.

Point of fact, ANY money owed to the IRS that you refuse to pay will result in jail time. It's the not paying that is a jailable offense.