Insurance mandate opens door for solutions to other problems

[Puppycow]

They can put you in jail if you refuse to pay a fine for a parking ticket too.

It usually doesn't come to that, but it is possible.

 

[mhaze]

They can put you in jail if you refuse to pay a fine for a parking ticket too.

It usually doesn't come to that, but it is possible.

It is the very ridiculousness of considering there to be nothing wrong with jailing someone for not getting health insurance that I point out. If you think this way, then to understand my comment,start with the concept that the vast majority of people do not share your views.

Not conservative, not libertarian, and not independant. So I am not going to say that you cannot rationalize the most likely unconstitutional idea of jailing people for not getting health insurance.

It just ranks as the flat out dumbest thing in years.

People don't like getting jailed. People don't like the idea of getting jailed for something that's likely not constitutional. Essentially this is the government forcing people to buy something, whether it is from the government store or a private store.

And how well has that worked in Massachusetts?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is the very ridiculousness of considering there to be nothing wrong with jailing someone for not getting health insurance that I point out.

I think puppycow's point was that you can be jailed for not paying the fine. It is no more accurate to say people will be jailed for not getting health insurance than it is to say they are jailed for parking longer than 2 hours at a meter, or some such.

If you think this way, then to understand my comment,start with the concept that the vast majority of people do not share your views.

The same can be said of the majority opinion on evolution. It doesn't make evolution wrong either.

People don't like the idea of getting jailed for something that's likely not constitutional.

Under what language does this conflict with the constitution?

 

[mhaze]

I think puppycow's point was that you can be jailed for not paying the fine. It is no more accurate to say people will be jailed for not getting health insurance than it is to say they are jailed for parking longer than 2 hours at a meter, or some such.


The same can be said of the majority opinion on evolution. It doesn't make evolution wrong either.


Under what language does this conflict with the constitution?

Repeating Puppycow's comment is not enlightening, it is simply repeating his comment. Some analogy to evolution is completely irrelevant, unless your Goddess is Pelosi.

As for the language does this conflict...

I'm still waiting for your response (2 or 3 times asked so far) as to acknowledging that there is a serious debate among constitutional scholars as to the constitutionality of this matter. When you admit to that part of reality, then perhaps we can discuss what your particular views on the matter are.

 

[INRM]

MHaze,

Constitutionality issues aside, it is a very, very very bad idea to jail people for a lot of things (speaking here as small government advocate).

And the reasons for a small government is so that it cannot become powerful enough or sufficiently capable to intrude into every aspect of the lives of it's citizens.


Puppy-Cow,

They can put you in jail if you refuse to pay a fine for a parking ticket too.

It usually doesn't come to that, but it is possible.

A fine is a punishment for violating a law in this case because you parked in an inappropriate location.

Health Insurance is not a punishment...


MHaze,

It is the very ridiculousness of considering there to be nothing wrong with jailing someone for not getting health insurance that I point out.

Good point.

People don't like getting jailed. People don't like the idea of getting jailed for something that's likely not constitutional. Essentially this is the government forcing people to buy something, whether it is from the government store or a private store.

And how well has that worked in Massachusetts?

I don't think it's a good idea for the government to force a person to buy a service under penalty of imprisonment.


INRM

 

[Earthborn]

A fine is a punishment for violating a law in this case because you parked in an inappropriate location.

Health Insurance is not a punishment...

Parking isn't a punishment either. The fine is.

I don't think it's a good idea for the government to force a person to buy a service under penalty of imprisonment.

If you get sick, and you live in a country decent enough to not let you suffer or die because of it, and you do not buy health insurance you force others to pay for your healthcare without ever having paid for anything yourself. Mandating health insurance is not the same as forcing to buy a service -- in it self an insurance policy isn't a service -- it is forcing people to pay at least something for services they might need in the future.

 

[mhaze]

MHaze,

And the reasons for a small government is so that it cannot become powerful enough or sufficiently capable to intrude into every aspect of the lives of it's citizens.
....

Oh, there are numerous other reasons. But you've listed a good one there.

We could say further that if government was small, it would make smaller blunders and smaller stupidities.

That'd be nice.

By the way, someone has alleged that paying a fine for a parking ticket is somehow similar to paying a fine for not buying national health insurance. This is embarrasingly wrong.

The municipality gets it's powers from the state. The state has those powers not set aside to the federal government. (or arguably not encroached upon and not protested, and the trends thereof).

Arguing the similarity being the fine (of the municipality) and the jailtime (at the federal level for not buying insurance) indicates an ignorance of the differences between these levels of government and their respective duties and empowerments. Constitutionality refers to, generally, the relationship between the individual and the federal government.

Which was the very point I and others made about the stupidity of even trying to push the edges of the envelope of constitutionality, let alone with as inane an issue as jailing people who don't buy into the scheme.

 

[3point14]

This all brings up some confusion I have about US politics, or rather about the constitution. Many folks here use the constitution as some sort of trump card - "Aha, I must be right, it's in the constitution!"

It seems to be considered inviolate and the last word in any legislative argument, is this the case?

What if the OP was right and the legislation was totally unconstitutional, but still a really good idea? Would the idea be kicked out for being unconstitutional? Or could you guys over the pond just add another amendment?

Sorry, just realised this might be a total derail.

 

[FlamingMoe]

This all brings up some confusion I have about US politics, or rather about the constitution. Many folks here use the constitution as some sort of trump card - "Aha, I must be right, it's in the constitution!"

It seems to be considered inviolate and the last word in any legislative argument, is this the case?

The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," in its own words. Of course it's a "trump card."

What if the OP was right and the legislation was totally unconstitutional, but still a really good idea? Would the idea be kicked out for being unconstitutional? Or could you guys over the pond just add another amendment?

Both. The best law in the world should remain unpassed if it's not constitutional. If it is indeed the best law in the world (or even if it's the worst law in the world), we can amend the Constitution to allow it, which is why any blathering about being stuck with 200-year-old philosophies (with the implication that we should "flex" the Constitution) is such utter trash.

 

[mhaze]

This all brings up some confusion I have about US politics, or rather about the constitution. Many folks here use the constitution as some sort of trump card - "Aha, I must be right, it's in the constitution!"

It seems to be considered inviolate and the last word in any legislative argument, is this the case?

What if the OP was right and the legislation was totally unconstitutional, but still a really good idea? Would the idea be kicked out for being unconstitutional? Or could you guys over the pond just add another amendment?

Sorry, just realised this might be a total derail.

Yes we can and have added amendments. But "Progressive liberals" don't want to go that route, because they don't represent the sort of majority that can ever get a constitutional amendment passed. They want to enforce their minority view on the whole population through various techniques. One of the more interesting of these is their ignoring or ridiculing the problem of constitutionality in pushing their agenda.

More recently, in the last year, we've seen three separate one to two thousand page bills rushed through the congress without time for the legislators to read or understand them.

Basically that's a banana republic fascist type tactic, where it is implicitly asserted that the bills will be approved and passed.

The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," in its own words. Of course it's a "trump card."

Both. The best law in the world should remain unpassed if it's not constitutional.....

That would be the conservative view, while the "progressive" would push to pass it, ignore the constitutional issues which he purposefully and knowingly pushes the limits of, and plan to fight the battle of constitutionality when and if it gets to the Supreme Court.

Given that the legislators's oath is to uphold the Constitution, the progressive method as above described is a violation of that oath of office.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Repeating Puppycow's comment is not enlightening, it is simply repeating his comment.

I guess it's no enlightening to you because you keep missing the point.

I was pointing out that claiming you could be jailed for not having insurance (under the House proposal) is no more valid than claiming you can be jailed for parking longer than 2 hours at a meter.

You can't. You can be jailed for not paying the fine, but even that is extremely rare, since courts are much more interested in compliance than throwing you in jail.

A fine is a punishment for violating a law in this case because you parked in an inappropriate location.

Health Insurance is not a punishment...

You've got the elements of this analogy all confused:

The initial crime-- parking illegally:not having health insurance (if you're among those not exempted from the mandate)

The punishment-- a fine: a fine

Punishment for the crime of not paying your fines--possible jail: possible jail
(Similarly, you can also be arrested and jailed for not appearing in court when you're issued a subpoena to appear.)

Again, you cannot be jailed for not having insurance any more than you can be jailed for illegal parking.

_________________

This all brings up some confusion I have about US politics, or rather about the constitution. Many folks here use the constitution as some sort of trump card - "Aha, I must be right, it's in the constitution!"

It seems to be considered inviolate and the last word in any legislative argument, is this the case?

What if the OP was right and the legislation was totally unconstitutional, but still a really good idea? Would the idea be kicked out for being unconstitutional? Or could you guys over the pond just add another amendment?

Yes, wrt ordinary legislation, the U.S. Constitution is inviolate. If you pass a law that conflicts with the Constitution, then it can be challenged and thrown out by the courts as unconstitutional. It is always possible to amend the constitution (a much more onerous task than merely passing a law) so that the law would not be unconstitutional.

Just to clarify things, there's nothing to stop Congress from passing an unconstitutional law (except themselves). If such a law is passed and then signed by the president (or his veto overridden by a 2/3 majority in Congress), then it becomes law, though it is still subject to review by the courts. If the judicial branch finds the law to be unconstitutional, they can strike down the law.

So technically, I suppose, the Constitution is the last word in the legal argument rather than the legislative argument.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes we can and have added amendments. But "Progressive liberals" don't want to go that route, because they don't represent the sort of majority that can ever get a constitutional amendment passed.

You're assuming that there is a valid argument that this bill is unconstitutional. I haven't seen it yet. Remember, to challenge the constitutionality of a law, you can't just shift the burden to the other side by saying, "Prove to me that it's constitutional" (or "Prove to me that Congress has the authority to pass this law").

I think most "liberals" aren't even considering a constitutional amendment wrt to healthcare reform because it's not necessary.

Hey, if you're looking for a lawyer to argue your case, I understand Orly Taitz isn't doing anything these days. . . . .

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

nevermind

 

[mhaze]

You're assuming that there is a valid argument that this bill is unconstitutional. I haven't seen it yet....

I'm not particularly interested in your opinion on what a valid argument is or is not on the matter. Fourth time I ask this question:

Do you acknowledge there is a serious discussion among constitutional law scholars as to the constitutionality of the health care bill?

Answer that, and then we can compare your opinions with those of leading scholars.

Google is your friend.

 

[Beerina]

Insurance mandate opens door for solutions to other problems

Constitution? WHO NEEDS IT!?!?

Personally, the real problem is the ability of memes to spread by adopting sub-memes of the ethicality of the offensive use of force.

History shows us this is the source of humanity's major problems, not the solution to it.

It's a difficult prospect for people to understand, mainly because it never seems unethical when you are the one behind the gun, especially with streams of vocalizations that tell you you are Good for doing this -- for the other person's own good.

Freedom, i.e. not forcing people to do things against their own will, for their own good, the poor sods, doesn't enter into it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My bolding:

I'm not particularly interested in your opinion on what a valid argument is or is not on the matter. Fourth time I ask this question:

Do you acknowledge there is a serious discussion among constitutional law scholars as to the constitutionality of the health care bill?

You're contradicting yourself here. Either you are interested in my opinion on what is a valid constitutional argument or you're not.

Anyway, to answer your question: No.

Under what legal argument do you think there is a constitutional problem with the bill?

Google is your friend.

This is still not an answer to the question, "What is the constitutional problem you see with the healthcare reform bill?"

I can google any number of people who think the Birthers have a valid case that Obama isn't eligible to be the U.S. President, but that doesn't mean it's so.

 

[Upchurch]

This is still not an answer to the question, "What is the constitutional problem you see with the healthcare reform bill?"

Wait. You can now Google for a particular person's perception on a topic when they haven't written it down?!?

The Google crawlers are good, but I had no idea....

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Rather than doing anything productive, I just googled "House healthcare reform bill constitutionality".

The first hit was an article titled, "Congress ignores Constitution in pursuit of sweeping health care reform" by James H. "Smokey" Shott of the Bluefield (WV) Daily Telegraph.

The second hit was from the Christian Science Monitor, and the article said "Lawyers linked to the Tea Party movement say healthcare reform is unconstitutional and vow to challenge any bill in federal court. The issue: Has Congress overstepped its constitutional authority?" It described arguments that they make--that it violated the 16th Amendment (I don't buy that), and a slippery slope argument that allowing Congress to pass a law like this might lead to Congress' grabbing up more power. The article says that Irvine School of Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky agrees with Nancy Pelosi in describing these arguments as "ridiculous".

The third hit is a Business Exchange page that mirrors the CS Monitor article.

The fourth hit is an article in BNET Health Care Blog in support of the bill. The hit actually came from a user comment by some guy whose userid is Coach-Lee-428, who says, "One quick questions [sic] - Constitutional Authority? This is 100% unconstitutional as are many of the bills these authority hungry elected officials."

The fifth hit is a news article in the Christian Post about the passing of the bill by the House. While the article seems to have a religious/conservative bias (it seems to focus on the anti-abortion language added in shortly before the bill was passed), it doesn't even mention a constitutional problem. This comes up again in the user comments. (And the debate there seems to focus as much on what the Bible says as anything like a constitutional argument.)

So again, I do not acknowledge that there is a serious debate among constitutional scholars about the constitutionality of this bill--at least not unless the views of "Smokey Shott", "lawyers associated with the Tea Paty" , "Coach-Lee-428", and the Bible-based arguments of Christian Post readers are a better representation of the thinking of constitutional scholars than that of Irvine School of Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky.

ETA: Mhaze, it would seem that Google is not your friend in this argument.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wait. You can now Google for a particular person's perception on a topic when they haven't written it down?!?

The Google crawlers are good, but I had no idea....

I didn't even think to add "mhaze" as a search term. I assume it would only point me back to this thread.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My bolding:

It is the very ridiculousness of considering there to be nothing wrong with jailing someone for not getting health insurance that I point out. If you think this way, then to understand my comment,start with the concept that the vast majority of people do not share your views.

Not conservative, not libertarian, and not independant. So I am not going to say that you cannot rationalize the most likely unconstitutional idea of jailing people for not getting health insurance.

Can you point to the section or language in the House bill that calls for jailing people for not getting health insurance?

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

The words "jail" and "prison" and "sentence" do not appear anywhere in the legalese version of the bill.

"Imprisoned" shows up once, in a section about confidentiality of information passed from the Social Security Commissioner to the Health Choices Commissioner.

"Fine" appears 4 times in the bill.

Again, the bill calls for a fine. That you can be jailed for not paying a fine is an issue you can take up with already-existing law.