Forcing Americans To Buy Insurance Will Not Survive Court Challenge

[deportliberals]

If Obamacare passes in its currnt form, there will be an immediate court challenge over the issue of congress forcing americans to buy a "product" or "service" under penalty of law that millions of americans don't want...congress has never done this before.

It is doubtful the Roberts' court will allow this.  Congress has limited enumerated powers that have unconstitutionally be expanded by leftist judges bastardizing the Commerce clause...won't work this time, although the america-hating left will do everything it can to make it happen.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/02/beware-the-health-insurance-police/

[bkg]

I think you're wrong. As the bill is written, the gov't is not forcing anyone to buy health insurance. They're just going to increase your taxes if you don't. Unfortunately, there's a difference.

[NHSparky]

The same thing was said when auto insurance became mandatory.  They said the same thing when the government started taking money out of our checks for retirement, Medicare, etc.

Frogs in the pot, dude.

[deportliberals]

I think you're wrong. As the bill is written, the gov't is not forcing anyone to buy health insurance. They're just going to increase your taxes if you don't. Unfortunately, there's a difference.

No...I am right!  The Hosue bill madates that EVERYONE must purchase health insurance if they are not already covered by their employer's plan or in the public plan.  It fines first time offenders $200 and that fine goes up to $700 per individual.
This little goodie comes straight out of Hillarycare, 1993.  Hence, the government is forcing you to buy insurance.  The tax side of it you mention goes to employers who refuse to provide insurance coverage.

Care to debate any of this?

[deportliberals]

The same thing was said when auto insurance became mandatory.

Auto insurance is a "state" mandate, not a federal mandate. 

They said the same thing when the government started taking money out of our checks for retirement, Medicare, etc.

Those are not "products" or "services."  And you do not have to join medicare.

[deportliberals]

To reiterate, the House bill MANDATES that individuals MUST purchase healthcare or face a penalty.  In this case, the lefties are using a "surtax" as their penalty/fine for not buying healthcare:

http://www.atr.org/individual-health-mandate-withbr-income-tax-a3169#

[Chris_]

I think you're wrong. As the bill is written, the gov't is not forcing anyone to buy health insurance. They're just going to increase your taxes if you don't. Unfortunately, there's a difference.

This approach is how they got away with the original "machine gun ban" back in the 'thirties........congress knew that an outright ban would face a challenge under the 2nd Amendment, so they got around it with a registration scheme, and a $200 tax, which was a hell of a lot of money in 1938.......then they proceeded to come back later with import and manufacture date limitations........never an outright "ban", but so close that it became, at present, nearly indistinguishable from one.......

I certainly haven't read the bill, but I suspect that they are tiptoeing around the Constitution like they usually do......

They got away with McCain-Feingold didn't they?   In my opinion a flagrant violation of the 1st........

doc

[bkg]

No...I am right!  The Hosue bill madates that EVERYONE must purchase health insurance if they are not already covered by their employer's plan or in the public plan.  It fines first time offenders $200 and that fine goes up to $700 per individual.
This little goodie comes straight out of Hillarycare, 1993.  Hence, the government is forcing you to buy insurance.  The tax side of it you mention goes to employers who refuse to provide insurance coverage.

Care to debate any of this?

Go ahead. Let's debate.

Show me where the bill forces anyone to buy insurance. It simply does not. It gives you the option - buy or be taxed to death. When there's an option, no matter how manipulative, it's still an option and not forced participation.

Does logic illude you?

[bkg]

I certainly haven't read the bill, but I suspect that they are tiptoeing around the Constitution like they usually do......

They got away with McCain-Feingold didn't they?   In my opinion a flagrant violation of the 1st........

doc

That's exactly what they are doing. Since they've been given the opportunity to tax-at-will, they likely are fully compliant w/ the COTUS.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I believe the side saying it is not a forced purchase since you can either purchase OR pay a penalty/fee has the strongest argument on this, the distinction between State car insurance schemes and Federal health insurance isn't really germane, if was an unlawful taking under the 5th/14th Amendments in the Federal case, the same rights would have kept the State schemes from ever going into effect.

If this thing is going to be killed, it needs to be killed or at least neutered in Congress, the courts are not going to be much help or even particularly timely in getting around to being unhelpful.

[Chris_]

I believe the side saying it is not a forced purchase since you can either purchase OR pay a penalty/fee has the strongest argument on this, the distinction between State car insurance schemes and Federal health insurance isn't really germane, if was an unlawful taking under the 5th/14th Amendments in the Federal case, the same rights would have kept the State schemes from ever going into effect.

If this thing is going to be killed, it needs to be killed or at least neutered in Congress, the courts are not going to be much help or even particularly timely in getting around to being unhelpful.

I think you are correct, had they stuck with a mandate, without the tax penalty alternative  they might have faced a challenge, but as it stands, I don't think so.......

doc

[deportliberals]

Go ahead. Let's debate.

Show me where the bill forces anyone to buy insurance. It simply does not.

Page 296!  It has even been quoted by another poster here in the "poltics" section.

It gives you the option - buy or be taxed to death. When there's an option, no matter how manipulative, it's still an option and not forced participation.

Wrong, nutjob!  There are some seven million americans who currently can afford private insurance yet chose not to buy it...don't want the coverage...see U.S. Census stats.  These people will be forced to buy coverage(against their will) under Obamacare.  That's why it's called a MANDATE!  Might want to actually read the fricken link before jackin' your jaw.

And DL takes down another one...   

[deportliberals]

I think you are correct, had they stuck with a mandate, without the tax penalty alternative  they might have faced a challenge, but as it stands, I don't think so.......

doc

Read page 296...mandate and tax penalty are there.

[Chris_]

Read page 296...mandate and tax penalty are there.

Actually.....I was responding to DAT.......who addressed both points......

doc

[deportliberals]

Actually.....I was responding to DAT.......who addressed both points......

doc

Gotta go now...I'll be back...

[thundley4]

Gotta go now...I'll be back...

Really?  Why bother?

[BadCat]

You have a lot of faith in the SCOTUS.

Sorry.  I do not.

[Thor]

This approach is how they got away with the original "machine gun ban" back in the 'thirties........congress knew that an outright ban would face a challenge under the 2nd Amendment, so they got around it with a registration scheme, and a $200 tax, which was a hell of a lot of money in 1938.......then they proceeded to come back later with import and manufacture date limitations........never an outright "ban", but so close that it became, at present, nearly indistinguishable from one.......

I certainly haven't read the bill, but I suspect that they are tiptoeing around the Constitution like they usually do......

They got away with McCain-Feingold didn't they?   In my opinion a flagrant violation of the 1st........

doc

TV Doc, on the whole, you're right about the machine gun ban of 1934, HOWEVER, you failed to mention that a person ALSO had to have a "tax stamp", which NONE were printed for many years. No stamps, no machine gun, making it an effective ban. Part of that law was passed in 1968, courtesy of LBJ (the sporting clause) and it was further restricted in 1986, courtesy of Reagan.

An interesting side note:

The Hughes Amendment
The restrictions on full-auto firearms are a result of the Hughes Amendment (99th Congress, H.AMDT.777). The amendment prohibited the general public from possessing fully-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986. Rep. William Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed the amendment late in debate and at night when most of the members of the House were gone. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a long proponent of gun control, was presiding over the House at that time and a voice vote was taken. Despite the fact that the bill appeared to fail, Rep. Rangel declared the amendment approved and it was incorporated into House Bill 4332. Once passing the House, H.R.4332 was incorporated in its entirety into S.49. The Senate passed the final S.49 on April 10, 1986 by voice vote and it was signed by the President on May 19, 1986.

Seems like business as usual......... the Dems sneaking some crap in, even though it wouldn't have/ didn't necessarily pass.

[bkg]

Page 296!  It has even been quoted by another poster here in the "poltics" section.

Wrong, nutjob!  There are some seven million americans who currently can afford private insurance yet chose not to buy it...don't want the coverage...see U.S. Census stats.  These people will be forced to buy coverage(against their will) under Obamacare.  That's why it's called a MANDATE!  Might want to actually read the fricken link before jackin' your jaw.

And DL takes down another one...   

Sir, please calm down and try to follow along. I'm typing very slowly, so I hope you can keep up. Under the mandates, if you CHOOSE to not get insurance, you pay a tax penalty.

Do you understand what that really means? It means you can choose to not get insurance and by doing so agree to pay a huge ass fine by way of increased taxes. That means that the gov't is not forcing you into buying health insurance. It's really quite simple. I'm not sure why you are having such a difficult time understanding it.

[Chris_]

TV Doc, on the whole, you're right about the machine gun ban of 1934, HOWEVER, you failed to mention that a person ALSO had to have a "tax stamp", which NONE were printed for many years. No stamps, no machine gun, making it an effective ban. Part of that law was passed in 1968, courtesy of LBJ (the sporting clause) and it was further restricted in 1986, courtesy of Reagan.

An interesting side note:
Seems like business as usual......... the Dems sneaking some crap in, even though it wouldn't have/ didn't necessarily pass.

If I remember correctly the $200 fee was ostensibly for the "tax stamp", however, I was not aware that there were no stamps issued.......seems to me that that should have formed the basis of a constitutional challenge (should anyone have cared to do so) based on a defacto ban.

I was unaware of the details on the more recent additions to this act, but the one that most owners have a problem with, at least currently, is that you can't register an automatic that was manufactured after 1984 (I think) which limits the available pool to such an extent that prices are out of the range of most casual enthusiasts....

doc

[DumbAss Tanker]

Actually, no, doc; there have been cases on guns, marijuana, and God-knows-what-else where the Gov't has gotten away with providing a legal way to do something, but then never allowed the means.  The Lautenberg Amendment has something like that working in it, where there is a legal procedure to apply for an exception, but the agency to which you have to apply is prohibited from allocating any resources whatsoever to process requests for exception.

[deportliberals]

Really?  Why bother?

To educate the uninformed like you...hurl an insult and I'll make sure one comes back at you...

[TheSarge]

To educate the uninformed like you...hurl an insult and I'll make sure one comes back at you...

 

[bkg]

To educate the uninformed like you...hurl an insult and I'll make sure one comes back at you...

It's funny to watch someone as ill-informed as you attempt to educate the masses.  

[deportliberals]

Sir, please calm down and try to follow along. I'm typing very slowly, so I hope you can keep up. Under the mandates, if you CHOOSE to not get insurance, you pay a tax penalty.

In your post above, you said there are no mandates!  It is clear that you do not know what the world "mandate" means!  Here, the Heritage Foundation analysis of 3200 discussing the PRIVATE MANDATE:

http://www.heritage.org/Press/FactSheet/fs0036.cfm
 
Now on to your failed understanding about WHY it is a mandate.  According to the U.S. Census CPS count, there are some 29 million americans without insurance who can easily afford insurance...10 million who make more than $75/k per year and 9 million of 18 to 34 yearolds who have access to insurance but want to spend their money on other things.

These 29 million people will be forced to purchase insurance against their will and that is not an "option" but a mandate!   Do you get it??