mountain man primitive wants to outlaw medical insurance

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6178671

Oh my.

The mountain man primitive:

ThomWV  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:43 PM
Original message
 
Am I the only one who thinks mandated private insurance would be unconstitutional?

The Government can not mandate that I buy something because of my existance - and no, this is not like state mandated auto insurance. I don't have to drive, but I have to breath.

ixion  (1000+ posts)        Wed Jul-29-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
 
1. no, you're not

Insurance is, by and large, a ripoff, even the mandated stuff.

Oregone  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
 
2. If we strictly adhered to ONLY the basics of the constitution

Ron Paul would be a happy man, and the rest of us would be up shit creek without a paddle or public education

John Q. Citizen  (1000+ posts)        Wed Jul-29-09 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
 
11. That isn't what the OP asked. Or are you suggesting that nothing is unconstitutional ever?

Statistical  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
 
15. Actually I think he is saying the exact opposite.

If we followed the Constitution strictly as intended by the founding fathers then virtually everything the federal govt does is unconstitutional.

The constitution clearly spells out the role of the federal govt and states everything else is reserved for the states.

So dept of education, banking regulations, health and human services, social security, medicare, all forms of welfare are all unconstitutional strictly speaking.

The govt gets away with it by a few sentences in the commerce clause. The courts have blow the commerce clause so wide open that virtually anything can be linked to it and thus constitutional.

The constitutional framework has really no meaning as a limit of federal power anymore. Only the BofR does that and it is being eroded with time. Another 100 years or so and the courts likely will have ruled that there is no restriction that can be placed on the Feds.

stray cat  (1000+ posts)     Wed Jul-29-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
 
3. Make it non-mandatory but if they don't have the money up front - no treatment
that would be constitutional. If you don't want access to health care you don't have to participate.

ThomWV  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
 
4. Single payer removes the question entirely

Statistical  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
 
7. Well yeah but that wasn't your question.

Should insurance be mandated vs a more simpler single payer system? Hell no.

Can it constitutionally be mandated? Sure.

Unless somewhere you can find an interpretation that requires you to have free insurance.

Hello_Kitty  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
 
13. There are people who pay for their health care out of their own pockets

Plenty of them.

Statistical  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
 
5. What constitutional protection does it violate.

We mandate lots of things.

We mandate car insurance for one.

We mandate that if you want a sprinkler system would MUST purchase and install a black flow preventer.

The interstate commerce clause as it currently is interpreted basically includes everything so unless the BofR prohibits it the govt can do it.

Davis_X_Machina  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
 
12. 14th adt and not some violation of the Commerce Clause, I think...

...via due process.

But the putative right violated by state action -- a right to be free of this sort of compulsory purchase -- would have to be found to be "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), and there's no history of such a right, never mind it being privileged to that degree.

You've got the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights (e.g. the Eighth Amendment), restrictions on the political process (e.g. the rights of voting, association, and free speech); and the rights of “discrete and insular minorities” presently considered 'implict etc, etc.'

I'd bet dollars to donuts it's been tested with auto insurance mandates, and given the Mass. plan I'd bet sight unseen there's a case in the pipe on health insurance mandates.

ThomWV  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
 
17. The get away with auto insurance because driving is a 'privilege' not a right

I suppose its also why they can license you to drive but can't require a license to be alive.

ThomWV  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
 
14. 5th Amendment

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Davis_X_Machina  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
 
21. It's not a 'taking'...

..because possession of the good doesn't transfer to the state.

Davis_X_Machina  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:48 PM
Response to Original message

6. It would require a narrow reading of the Constitution...

...a reading so narrow that it would also exclude any right you might claim to health care, or even treatment.

Originalism is a two-edged sword.

Armchair QB (1 posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
 
8. No, you're not
 
People who choose not to have insurance, shouldn't be forced to purchase it.

I also think health insurance should be like auto insurance, where you pay for the coverage you need and can buy a policy from any company in the nation who will sell it.

If we had the ability to buy from a company like Progessive, where we only bought the coverage we needed, at the deductible we chose, and the rates were set on how we live our lives much like how we drive our cars, insurance would be much more affordable

surrealAmerican (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
 
9. I think it's a bad idea, but not a constitutional issue.

ejpoeta  (1000+ posts)        Wed Jul-29-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
 
10. this is why a public option --a TRUE public option--- must be available.

when I went to UB, we had to have insurance. We could have our own insurance, like that of our parents or whatever or else we were put on the student insurance. and the cost was included in our bill. i don't remember what it was, but I remember that. And i was on the school insurance, so that meant that if I was sick or needed to see the doctor I went to the student clinic and got tests where they sent me to get tests. Like when I found out I was pregnant... Now, that sounds about right as far as mandates go. the student plan was not expensive.

John Q. Citizen  (1000+ posts)        Wed Jul-29-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
 
16. Did the government mandate you attend UB, or was that your own idea?

fascisthunter  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
 
18. it is in fact fascist

the antithesis of both democracy and freedom.

The mad & dumb primitive:

MADem  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
 
19. In MA it is "mandated," but you don't "have" to have it. 

You pay a fine if you don't have it, though...but it's not a fine--it's an additional tax for not complying with the law.

Birthmark (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
 
20. I definitely agree

Been meaning to start a thread about this, but I figured it was pointless. I'm glad you saw the point because upon reflection, I agree that the Constitutionality of this requirement is dubious at best.

Hello_Kitty  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
 
22. I consider it taxation without representation

I have no say over who runs private insurance companies. If I'm not a major shareholder I don't get to "vote the bum out" if I don't like the way the CEO is running Blue Cross.

The mountain man primitive is just an old tub of lard.

[The Village Idiot]

Blah Blah....

How about illegals pay the $1000 to $2500 fine per year for their healthcare. How about that?

In my opinion... Everyone else can buy Catastrophic Care Insurance, Medical Savings Account and such... maybe we should dump all those mandates and allow hospitals and insurance companies to compete with each other in offering plans tailor-made for the customer. Maybe for those who can't afford to pay out of pocket for minor care- insurance companies could offer MediCredit, where the companies pay for the minor care andthe customer pays it back over a matter of months with interest.

I dunno... thats just an idea...

[GOBUCKS]

Oregone  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-29-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
 
2. If we strictly adhered to ONLY the basics of the constitution

Ron Paul would be a happy man, and the rest of us would be up shit creek without a paddle or public education

The recommendation that all ronbots should ESAD is the one tiny bit of common ground I share with the DUmmies.

[miskie]

Blah Blah....

How about illegals pay the $1000 to $2500 fine per year for their healthcare. How about that?

In my opinion... Everyone else can buy Catastrophic Care Insurance, Medical Savings Account and such... maybe we should dump all those mandates and allow hospitals and insurance companies to compete with each other in offering plans tailor-made for the customer. Maybe for those who can't afford to pay out of pocket for minor care- insurance companies could offer MediCredit, where the companies pay for the minor care andthe customer pays it back over a matter of months with interest.

I dunno... thats just an idea...

Thats not too far off from my position - and I'm certain that between enhanced competition and a sudden decline in unnecessary services being provided because they cost the consumer nothing extra would drive the cost down for everyone. 

[thundley4]

I've read that one big thing that makes insurance cost so much is the mandated coverage that has to be offered. 

[franksolich]

I've read that one big thing that makes insurance cost so much is the mandated coverage that has to be offered.

Yeah, I have a problem with that, paying for insurance that I don't need and can't use, but have to buy anyway.

It's not likely I'm going to fall prey to any of the ailments of affluenza and decadence, but that possibility of course is figured into the premiums I pay, increasing what I have to pay.

That's why I don't carry prescription-drug coverage; it's not likely I'm going to fall prey to any of the ailments of affluenza and decadence, and so it's equally likely I'm not going to need pharmaceuticals.

I wish it were possible to cafeteriaize medical insurance, in which case I would need coverage for only the moderate possibility of cancer, the high possibility of injury or death by crime, and the very high probability of injury or death by accident.

[miskie]

Yeah, I have a problem with that, paying for insurance that I don't need and can't use, but have to buy anyway.

It's not likely I'm going to fall prey to any of the ailments of affluenza and decadence, but that possibility of course is figured into the premiums I pay, increasing what I have to pay.

That's why I don't carry prescription-drug coverage; it's not likely I'm going to fall prey to any of the ailments of affluenza and decadence, and so it's equally likely I'm not going to need pharmaceuticals.

I wish it were possible to cafeteriaize medical insurance, in which case I would need coverage for only the moderate possibility of cancer, the high possibility of injury or death by crime, and the very high probability of injury or death by accident.

Indeed. If I had to mandate anything, it would be catastrophic coverage only.
If people want to buy additional insurance - fine.
If people want to bank money for medical reasons - great.
If people want to shop for eye care, dental, prescription etc etc - wonderful.

It's your money, spend it as you like.

But stop requiring all-inclusive plans that force everyone to cover everything, because it makes for higher premiums for those who pay, so that we may cover the asses of those who don't.

[thundley4]

The provision in the proposed plan to force insurance companies to accept existing conditions, without an increased premium is tantamount to driving everyone's rates up. They'll keep that but drop the mandated coverage, so people can just wait until they need insurance to sign up for it.  It would be like not having car insurance until after the wreck.