Is it Constitutional to require all Americans to buy health insurance?

[Thunder]

Um...would such a plan..that requires all 350 million Americans to buy health insurance, pass the SCOTUS?

I mean, its one thing to require all drivers to have a license and all car-owners to purchase auto-insurance, but requiring people to buy health insurance simply because they live and breath, may not be Constitutional.

Mind you, I am ALL FOR this plan. I want it to pass, with a Public-Option. But it may be over-stepping its bounds.

I hope I am wrong.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Is it Constitutional to require all Americans to buy health insurance?

Only if a valid statute is crafted and passed, and passes Constitutional tests, would that requirement meet the Constitutional test.

I personally find this penal approach to Health Care ( or is it Health Care Insurance?) reform unpalatable.

DR

 

[Magyar]

I am guessing it is about as valid a question as asking if it's
unconstititional to require all 1st time home owners to purchase
mortgage insurance

or drivers to purchase liability insurance.

In other words its only related to a constitutional issue in the minds of
tea bagger, libertarian right wing big gummit conspiracy nut jobs.


That said, and as much as I am for UHC, I am with DR on this. This bill is nothing but a big giant scam for the health insurance industry! I think if it stays this way it is going to go the same way as the shift we had from company pentions to 401K.

 

[Thunder]

or drivers to purchase liability insurance.

In other words its only related to a constitutional issue in the minds of
tea bagger, libertarian right wing big gummit conspiracy nut jobs. .

car owners should have car insurance. they chose to buy a car.

home owners should have insurance..they chose to buy a home.

but this law requires all Americans to buy health insurance from a corporate HMO or the govt., because they live and breath.

this may not pass the SCOTUS. and I totally support the plan. and I am a Social-Democrat. voted for Obama twice. will gladly vote for him again in 2012.

but i still think this current plan may violate the Constitution.

 

[Newtons Bit]

car owners should have car insurance. they chose to buy a car.

home owners should have insurance..they chose to buy a home.

but this law requires all Americans to buy health insurance from a corporate HMO or the govt., because they live and breath.

this may not pass the SCOTUS. and I totally support the plan. and I am a Social-Democrat. voted for Obama twice. will gladly vote for him again in 2012.

but i still think this current plan may violate the Constitution.

It definitely violates the spirit of the Constitution as it was originally crafted by the framers. Whether it's unconstitutional by todays interpretation today is a toss-up. Congress is allowed to do pretty much anything it wants by using the commerce clause these days.

 

[Thunder]

Congress is allowed to do pretty much anything it wants by using the commerce clause these days.

yeah. Inter-state Commerce Clause. Not a huge fan of that law being used to justify pretty much anything.

 

[Puppycow]

Yes it's constitutional.

The constitution gives the congress authority to levy taxes and to "provide for the general welfare." Taxes are a way to purchase public goods like roads and police. Requiring people to purchase insurance is like requiring them to pay taxes. You can think of it as a kind of tax.

Social security is also the same kind of thing. It's like a required insurance.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

but i still think this current plan may violate the Constitution.

Under what clause or section of the Constitution?

 

[Thunder]

Social security is also the same kind of thing. It's like a required insurance.

good point. but Social Security taxes are only required to be paid by folks who have a job.

Health-insurance will be required by all Americans, regardless of their employment status, no?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

yeah. Inter-state Commerce Clause. Not a huge fan of that law being used to justify pretty much anything.

If someone is going to bring a constitutional challenge to a law that Congress passed, the burden of making a case is on them to show it is unconstitutional. So again, it's really incumbent on the person claiming the bill is unconstitutional to cite how it is. You can't shift the burden to the other side to prove that it's not unconstitutional.

As for the "Congress doesn't have the authority" argument, I see no problem with it being within the powers of Congress as described in the first paragraph of Article I Section 8:

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(Also, the end of that section has the famous "necessary and proper" language.)

An attempt to provide access to healthcare to as many of us as possible certainly is part of the "general Welfare".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Health-insurance will be required by all Americans, regardless of their employment status, no?

Not according to the bill passed by the House. In that bill a number of exceptions are made, and one of them is economic hardship.

ETA: According to the Kaiser Family Foundation's summary of the House bill:

Exceptions granted for those with incomes below the filing threshold (in 2009 the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 is $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples), religious objections and financial hardship.

FWIW, I agree that a single payer system financed by income taxes would have been a lot better than this health insurance reform approach, but I don't see any constitutional problem with it. On this thread (essentially the same topic as the present thread, but with a bit of a misleading thread title), mhaze has been trying to argue that there is an actual serious debate among constitutional scholars on the issue, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. (He has submitted a link to a factcheck.org debunking of a chain letter e-mail making a pretty wild case that the bill is unconstitutional, linked to an op-ed piece by a retired judge who disagrees with the 1942 case that broadened the interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and otherwise just told me google the topic. When I did that, I pretty much only found references to tea-baggers crying "socialism!") It seems that Puppycow's assessment is right.

 

[Thunder]

Not according to the bill passed by the House. In that bill a number of exceptions are made, and one of them is economic hardship.

well, in that case, it may be okee dokee.

 

[Brainster]

Yes it's constitutional.

The constitution gives the congress authority to levy taxes and to "provide for the general welfare."

You mean "promote the general welfare". And yes, the ICC has been the thin end of the wedge for the past 100+ years.

 

[WildCat]

In addition to the other points made, no one is actually required to buy health insurance under the bill. You just pay a small (relative to the cost of insurance) tax penalty if you don't.

It's a joke.

 

[Ausmerican]

It definitely violates the spirit of the Constitution as it was originally crafted by the framers. Whether it's unconstitutional by todays interpretation today is a toss-up. Congress is allowed to do pretty much anything it wants by using the commerce clause these days.

But you can live and breathe without medical care parky. The insurance isn't because you live and breathe it's because if you stop living & breathing you would like that rectified if at all possible.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yes it's constitutional.

The constitution gives the congress authority to levy taxes and to "provide for the general welfare." Taxes are a way to purchase public goods like roads and police. Requiring people to purchase insurance is like requiring them to pay taxes. You can think of it as a kind of tax.

Social security is also the same kind of thing. It's like a required insurance.

Social security is a tax. The service is provided by the government to everyone. It's not a mandate to buy a product.

 

[mhaze]

Social security is a tax. The service is provided by the government to everyone. It's not a mandate to buy a product.

Actually, not it isn't provided to everyone. 40 quarters of paid employment into the SS system are required for one to be registered in it and later receive benefits. Under either self employment or employee status, one is required to pay into the system - but if one did not make the 40 quarters or 10 full years, there would be no benefits. In certain cases (survivor benefits) exceptions exist, such as for the spouse of a person who was entitled to social security.

So in no sense is Social Security similar to a universal mandate. Rather it is a government contract conditioned upon employment.

AFAIR the qualifications for Medicare were similar.

JoetheJuggler says:

On this thread (essentially the same topic as the present thread, but with a bit of a misleading thread title), mhaze has been trying to argue that there is an actual serious debate among constitutional scholars on the issue, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. (He has submitted a link to a factcheck.org debunking ...
​

More precisely, I've been interested in whether Joe could go out and find evidence that was contrary to his prejudices. Apparently not. Or at least not that he's admitting to.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

As has been discussed elsewhere: yes.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

but i still think this current plan may violate the Constitution.

So?

Why do you care so much as to whether it is constitutional, as opposed as to whether it is objectively just?

Continuing to focus on what a bunch of guys -however brilliant- wrote up 200 years ago is a recipe for disaster. It's like refering to the Bible before you copulate ("hang on Barbara, Deuteronomy says that we should be doing this on our heads with licorice allsorts jammed up our ears!").

 

[WildCat]

Why do you care so much as to whether it is constitutional, as opposed as to whether it is objectively just?

Continuing to focus on what a bunch of guys -however brilliant- wrote up 200 years ago is a recipe for disaster. It borders on religion.

So we should just ignore the law in favor of what is politically popular?

Not that I think these bills are unconstitutional, but suggesting we ignore the supreme law of the land is incredibly reckless, dangerous, and foolhardy.