Is federal mandate for health coverage unconstitutional?
December 2, 2009 by Christian SchappelPosted in: Employment law, Health care, Pay and benefits, Special Report - Benefits
Here’s a new wrinkle in the health reform debate we haven’t heard before: A federal mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, according to one political think tank.
The Fund for Personal Liberty (TFPL) — a group which is also sponsoring a lawsuit against Medicare challenging the rule that anyone who refuses to accept Part A must sacrifice their Social Security benefits — says it will “challenge the constitutionality of any government mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance” should such a decree come out of health reform legislation.
“Any mandate to purchase health insurance is an invalid exercise of the powers granted to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States,” said Kent Masterson Brown, lead counsel for the TFPL. Translation: Such a mandate would be unconstitutional — at least according to TFPL.
TFPL was created for the purpose of “litigating for individuals’ healthcare liberty and freedom,” said Brown. It promises to challenge the constitutionality of any mandate passed down from Washington to purchase health insurance.
“A one-size-fits-all solution to our health care needs denies us our freedom to individually contract for insurance on terms acceptable to each of us — or, not at all,” said Martha de Forest, executive director of TFPL.
Currently, TFPL is providing legal counsel in Hall v. Sebelius, a lawsuit in which five senior citizens are challenging the constitutionality of Department of Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration policies forcing citizens to enroll in Medicare Part A or lose their Social Security benefits.
Do you agree with TFPL’s stance that an individual health coverage mandate would be unconstitutional? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
Tags: Constitution, Health and Human Services, health reform, medicare, Part A, social security, social security administration, The Fund for Personal Liberty
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I’ve seen this argument elsewhere, and I get where people are coming from. The problem right now is that uninsured folks still need healthcare and can’t afford to pay for it. So hospitals and doctors frequently end up writing-off those charges. Which means that people who carry insurance see their premiums rise to make up for that difference.
If an individual’s choice not to carry health insurance didn’t impact others, then I’d put more creedence into this argument. Now if someone because of their religion or personal beliefs does not ever obtain medical care they should be exempted. But requiring those people who do use medical services to pay their share eases the burden on the everyone else.
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Darcy, you cannot assume someone will be guilty of non-payment for medical services received if they are uninsured. Many uninsured people visit health care providers every year, and pay for every penny of treatment received. We are Americans, and we are innocent until proven guilty.
And just for the record, there are more unpaid medical bills from the insured than from the uninsured. Having insurance does not necessarily mean you can afford treatment.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
I tend to agree that it would be unconsitutional, wouldn’t Auto Insurance then be considered unconsitutional as well? We the People aren’t given credit for having brains and common sense to take care of ourselves and do the right thing. The more we let government “take over” in telling us what to do the worse it will get. Mandated health insurance is not about “doing the right thing” or providing a service to everyone…since they already have that service, it’s about control and lotsa moola for someone other than us, the ones who are actually earning the moola. We shouldn’t be dragging down all the citizens of this country because of those that don’t use their brains and who choose to take advantage of the system. The more accountable We the People are, the less someone else will be able to get away with!!! It’s not going to happen overnight…to all of you who want instant results…but if we start doing the right things now then it WILL happen and everyone in the long run will be happier. So far though, I seem to be surrounded by people who just want someone else to take care of them so they don’t have to think for themselves, or pay their bills, or be responsible for pretty much anything at all. To those people…it’s time to grow up and take responsibility for yourself and your own actions, and to stop spending money you don’t have for “things” you don’t really need anyway.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
I have to agree with Richard. Unfortunately, many people (not all) who are insured seem to feel that they don’t have to pay for anything. I’ve seen with my own eyes people who are well off refuse to pay their portion of a medical expense because they feel the “insurance company is ripping everyone off and should pay for it all.” Well excuse me, but that is not the insurance plan you signed up for and you are part of the reason the premiums are going up.
On the other hand, I don’t believe government healthcare should be mandated – medicare or otherwise. We do live in a free country.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:28 am
I agree with Richard, as an uninsured, i have to pay the entire charge amount in full when the insured patients have that same charge submitted to the insurance who doesn’t even cover the entire charge since there is allowed and disallowed and the 80/20 of what’s left to get paid by the insurance company and the insured. So who is getting the raw end to this deal.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
Richard and Lisa -
I’m not sure where you live, but in many communities, the uninsured requiring care are a huge financial drain on the healthcare systems. I’m curious where the data comes from that shows that the insured not paying outweigh the non-insured not paying – never heard that before. I do agree that the government mandating individuals is not the answer. Wish I had the answer, then I’d be making the moola!!
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Hate to tell you all this, but we no longer live in a free country. This so called “reform” is just another way to enlarge an already bloated government. Heath care is just another guise to promote the agendas of a few. Does anyone honestly think that Washington cares about your health? The only reason you need to stay healthy is to work longer, and pay more taxes.
That aside, they most certainly have no right to mandate coverage. Likewise, there are few ways to guarantee payment for care. But, here’s an idea:
Let’s stop the insanity in the courts with frivolous lawsuits, then doctors and hospitals pay less for litigation protection (which is where much of their money goes). They pay less, we pay less. A good part if the increased costs is the direct result of people wanting to retire early by ripping off a doctor or hospital. Cut the expense, you cut the cost. Simple.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
This is like the argument that requiring people to pay income taxes is unconstitutional. It ultimately will not fly. The power to tax includes the power to mandate payments indirectly. The requirement that all drivers be insured in many states has been challenged and failed.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
It is unconstitutional under federal law, as the constitution outlines those few things that the federal government can do, and reserves all other rights to the state or the individual. Therefore, state mandates may not be unconstitutional (depending on how the state constitution is written). So, auto insurance, which is a state mandate, would not be unconstitutional. Nor would state mandates for health insurance.
Personally, I think that there are ways to encourage participation and make health insurance available to all (who want it) without mandating it. But instead of going that route, I suspect that if a federal mandate passes and is found to be unconstitutional, the feds will make federal funding to states contigent on state mandates as a way to get around the constitutional issue. It is an unfortunate practice of usurping power that the federal government uses.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Tami, so true and well said!
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
In response to Sand, auto insurance is mandatory in California but there is a difference between that and health insurance. Driving is a privilege and if you choose to drive in California you must purchase auto insurance, but it is still YOUR CHOICE to drive with insurance or take the bus. No one is forcing you to spend money you don’t have or forcing you to by a product and threatening to fine you if you don’t. I believe forced mandatory health insurance purchasing is unconstitutional. That is very different than socialized healthcare (which I am also opposed to) where it just comes out of everyone’s taxes and everyone has it. Making you buy it and penalizing you if you don’t is wrong.
In the last 5 years, I have only had to see a doctor for my annual check up. I choose to have a high deductible plan with a low premium for that reason. I would not appreciate having to pay a lot more for more comprehensive coverage just in case I get sick and have a lot of medical expenses. If I do get sick then the bill is on me and I will pay my high deductible. That’s why I put money in my Health Savings Account. It’s about being responsible not about controlling people. Some people don’t want to be helped. They only want health insurance if it is “free” from the government, but if you tell people they have to purchase it, I bet they won’t want it quite as much anymore.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Let’s say there is some merit to this argument, how does it apply to auto insurance then?
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I believe most people believe any mandate could be construed as unconstitutional when viewed in a strict legal sense. Of course, we know most of Congress are lawyers and supported by lawyers and will do whatever they deem necessary to have their way. Auto insurance requirements are really a liability requirement in CA. You may get yourself bonded and meet the requirement. If you never have a visit from the policeman or CHP or an accident, no one will ever know if you have insurance or not. It is mentioned right on your DMV renewal notice on the back in small print. Uninsured motorist coverage is included in auto policies today: why? Because it is a reality. I see this all as an effort to reduce our freedom and bring more people under the thumb of the Feds. How does someone that elects as a free citizen to not carry insurance raise the premium cost for others? It is a risk a free citizen is willing to take and should be allowed to choose. High Deductible Plans are a great solution when linked with the HSA. The Feds simply don’t like them because they take away healthy citizens from their proposed universal coverage fantasy.
Personal risk management is one of the freedoms we should be fighting for vigorously. Are we required to purchase life insurance? This is just as risky to those with assets or families than no health insurance or auto insurance. Think of anything you might insure and why you wouldn’t want the govt, especially the Feds, to tell when and how much you need under the threat of penalty or additional taxation. My personal freedom to choose what risks to mitigate should remain my choice. That is the defining problem in this debate.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
I agree with Jeanette & Tami.
I think the only federal government run health insurance plan citizens should vote for is if coverage is identical to the coverage given to members of Congress and the Senate for life. If it’s good enough for those we vote into office, then it should be good enough for those who placed them there.
Short of providing everyone with identical coverage, the government should stay out of the insurance business. FEMA fooled with flood insurance and now it is too expensive to purchase if you’re zoned in a flood plane.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
My employer offers health care coverage. The employees are only responsible for a small fraction of the expense. However, some employees have waived coverage for their children and put them on government assistance. The government is paying for the dependants medical expenses now. The whole system is broken. (i.e. frivolous malpractic lawsuits, pharmacutical rapists, insurance company profiteers, etc.)
As a small manufacturer in the US, it would be more cost effective for us to pay a penalty for not offering coverage.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I hate to inform you Jeanette, put income tax is unconstitutional. As is the entire IRS. Unfortunately people think that because the government is forcing you to do it, It must be constitutional. The 5th amendment protects you from self incrimination, but the IRS requires you to report all finiancial transactions with out the benefit of reasonable cause or having a warrant issued.
In answer to the question. No the government should not be mandating health care.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Thank you so much for shedding some truth on this issue. This is absolutely unconstitutional. Again, can the Federal govt. just let us lead our lives in peace and stop tinkering with every aspect of our personal lives.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
If you live in any society, there are laws and regulations that guide or restrict your behavior. They are intended to serve the greater good. Maybe they don’t perfectly fit every individual circumstance at all times, but I know of no modern society that does not have laws and regulations and restrictions on the behavior of their citizens.
Also, if you think that governments only interfere with your personal life, are you ready to give up minimum wage, overtime pay, Social Security, Workers Compensation, OSHA, Medicare, Unemployment Compensation, COBRA, HIPAA, Equal Pay, your access to courts, malpractice, a public education, FDA, and on and on ….?
December 4th, 2009 at 6:28 am
Would it not be cheaper to have the government buy a basic health ins package for wage earners making less than poverty level? Its not a global alternative, but doesn’t it accomplish the desired purpose? Leave out optional stuff like face lifts, tummy tucks etc.
This would protect seniors on social security, union & employer benefits plans, etc and would not require a huge buracracy of new federal employees. Benefit eligibility could be generated from payroll reporting via the Department of Labor’s requirement for new hire information. Also adding a requirement for employers to report 1099 employees to Dept of Labor would close the loop & instantly reduce the unemployment figure.
From a state level, adding 1099 registrations to new hire requirments identifies unemployment tax revenue, child support payments, tax liens, garnishments, etc.
Some of the offset expense could be generated by requiring employers, financial instutions, casinos etc to withhold Federal taxes on IRS Forms 1099, and make it optional for states and local jurisdictionns to require the same. Today that’s not done, though the document has blank squares for that use.
If you are a state tax professional, ask IRS to provide via Freedom of Information Act, the data for 1099 origininators within your state that has payees out of your state. Multiply the result by your state withholding percentage. We aren’t talking nickels and dimes.
Best wishes,
Rollyn Trueblood
December 4th, 2009 at 7:15 am
My company offers a plan at an extremly low cost to us. The problem is when you use it, it is a long time comming with payment to the health care service. I have had collections call and mail me for payment.. .. so, I pay cash for regular appointments (at a considerable discount for cash) and I have done so for years. Insurance is for emergencys. Do you use your car insurance for every tune up or oil change? I do not trust a government that keeps beating us down with their new mandates. Thanks but I’m safe and happy as I am. Soon we will not have the freedom to choose anything for ourselves.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:36 am
When someone does not have health insurance, they are in effect forcing the people who have health insurance to pick up their tab through higher insurance permiums. Is that constitutional?
December 4th, 2009 at 8:42 am
It is constitutional. Completely. Richard, your evidence offered that ‘more bills go unpaid from the insured than the uninsured’ is not valid for establishing an argument, as 80% + US citizens have insurance and those that aren’t paying are usually those that need coverage but can only afford low-level coverage at best. I would argue that the sprawling out of control prices are affecting my freedoms more than any government mandates. Sure, I want to be covered, but if I can’t afford it, especially if it comes down to a choice of paying for everything else to live. I can’t afford high level coverage, so yeah the freedom is there but it’s not possible, just like I can buy a house and I have that freedom but can’t afford it. The whole point though, obviously, is to try to shore up the whole system, so doing anything at this point would be great and not letting the downward spiral continue. We just got our renewal rates and our low option is over 700 for a single rate HMO plan! Ridiculous. For some of our workers, it’s either that or no coverage at all, and these people I know need it. It’s not freedom if it’s a choice involving do I want to live and stay alive or not! And that choice to live and have healthcare (which insurance is in this country but it shouldn’t be, but that’s a whole other argument).
December 4th, 2009 at 9:35 am
We don’t need health care reform, we need insurance company reform. Even though we pay for insurance, the contracts between the insurance companies and the providers allow the insurance companies to pay the providers 1/5th the amount the provider charges for their services. This is only on covered expenses.
There are other means to provide everyone with medical care without taking away our constitutional rights. The insurance companies are the bad guys here and they are the ones that need to be made to follow laws. Right now they have created monopolies in each individual states, thus not allowing free interprise to dictate what rules they need to follow.
There are laws against monopolies and gauging citizens unfairly for products and services. This is where our govenment should be searching out ways to protect us citizens, but because of the lobbying by big business, the citizen no longer has representation.
Those elected officials that are supposed to represent the citizens get kickbacks and favors from big business to keep them from enforcing laws that were enacted to protect the citizen.
For those of you who cry about the many not having health insurance and the government needs to help, should instead by crying to their elected officials about not enforcing laws already in place to protect their constituates. And for us constituates it’s about time we started watching our representatives and if they arn’t doing their job, kick them out of office and get someone in there that will represent us.
I would love to see a lot of recall elections right now all over the United States to put some of these self-serving politions out on their a__.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I agree Sandra. Keep in mind though we are the country that elected a George Bush three times!
December 4th, 2009 at 9:42 am
To anser Steve on how this effects auto insurance.
Driving an automobile is not a constitutional right, it is a privilege. Therefore, if a citizen wants the privilege of driving an automobile, then they have to show financial responsibility to all other citizens that their actions may impact.
Purchasing auto insurance is not required if you can show financial responsibilty in other ways. But most of us cannot afford to have $300,000. just setting in the bank to cover cost of accidents. So we purchase insurance which allows us the privilege of driving an automobile.
You can own an automobile without insurance if you keep it parked on your property and never drive it on public roads, etc.
So therefore your constitutional rights are not being denied.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:15 am
My father was right. It’s time to move to Canada.
December 4th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
You can call the Health Care Bill unconstitutional, you can call it “reform”, you can call the premiums “mandated”, you can call them a tax, you can call it a lot of things, but Congressman Mike Rogers from Michigan calls it best (watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc): “…we’re going to punish the 85% of Americans who have earned health care benefits as part of their employment, we’re going to punsih them and the employers who give it to them to try and cover the 15% who don’t have it…Why would we punish the part that is working to cover the part that is not?”
The Democrats are trying to fix a problem without first fixing that which is causing the problem: illegal immigrants, frivolous lawsuits, unwarranted settlements granted by extreme liberal juries, politicians in the pockets of drug companies, 4th generation welfare recipients,…
Sand (above) on December 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am , is absolutely correct. I resent having to pay for others stupidity, laziness, and feeling of entitlement. If they would spend half the time working toward improving themselvses, as they do whining and complaining and feeling sorry for themselves, I would venture to say they would see an improvement in their outlook on life, and personal and family well-being.
This country was not founded and built by welfare or sittin’ on your butt waiting for Social Services to knock on your door. It was built by hard working, God believing, men and women.
December 5th, 2009 at 9:46 am
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” Thomas Jefferson
December 7th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Gayle Clark suggested that those not ensured are unisured because of “stupidity, laziness, and a feeling of entitlement”. I have to presume Gayle has no knowledge of any company reducing their workforce because of a decline in business. Where do the steelworkers, the former Maytag employees, the GE employees, the General Motors employees, and all the other millions of people impacted by this recession go to get jobs benefits? Where are all these jobs? In Wichita, KS where Gayle’s posting is from? Who doesn’t know someone who has been unemployed for a long time, despite sending hundreds of resumes and going on numerous interviews? Have you walked in those shoes yet?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:55 am
The question is not whether mandating coverage is right or wrong. It is whether it is constitutional. Honest people can disagree on what they feel is right or wrong. As I recall, there was no constitutional amendment required for Social Security to be implemented, although there certainly were lawsuits brought. The same scenario applies to mandated health insurance. Complain as much as you want; the Constitution is very clear on providing for the general welfare. That’s why we have Social Security and probably will one day have mandated health insurance coverage. After all, Social Security was originally passed as “old peoples’ retirement insurance.”
December 8th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
To ALL, a very astute group, Simple solution to this Healthcare debate. Yes, there are many that receive care now that do not pay for it AND I agree that everyone should be able to access medical care. What if we allowed providers of medical care to be able to write off any treatment for an uninsured person. A simple change in the IRS code would suffice not a trillion dollar program. I know of many doctors that would be willing to do that. They would get a break on their taxes, the person would get treated. Then let the free market forces take over.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Ken you know and we all know exactly what Gayle is talking about and it is not the examples you are giving! Yes, I am sure we all know people that have been laid off and yes, walked in those shoes, so where are all the new jobs?
December 8th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Linda, exactly, where are all the jobs in any recession? What are you, as a producer, going to make when there are so few buyers? How does a trucker make a dollar when there are no loads to haul? How does an autoworker keep a job when so few are buying a cars? How does a steelworker keep a job when their mill is not price competitive? Your inference “where are all the new jobs?” makes it sound like you just pull economic revitalization out of a hat and everything is immediately better. Nothing is that easy. It is going to take time to convince the public that the worst is behind us. When that happens, people, who still have the means, will start spending again (demand) and trigger increased production (supply) which could then translate to jobs. Do you have a simpler solution?
December 10th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Gayle, I completely agree with much of what you say…but not all. I believe that illegal immigration is a humongous problem and an exorbinant cost to our country and it’s tax payers. The Social Security dept, in my opionion and judging by the things I have seen occur, is doing nothing to check the legal status of an individual before handing out benefits. NO benefits should be handed out to people whose Soc #’s do not match their names with the Soc Sec dept. This is, at the very least, identity theft and fraud! I wish I knew the answer to that problem.
Do I think there are people who take full advantage of the systems? Absolutely!! But there are also those like my father who worked long and hard their whole life, paying their taxes, making sure his entire family was insured etc. Then due to horrible timing involving divorce and employment lay off, all complicated by diabetes which has now eventually caused total blindness, there are certainly people who absolutely must take advantage of medicare and/or others health care programs that are out there. And until very recently, his eye sight was not completely gone (but still so bad he had to use his glasses and a magnifying glass together, and still not be capable of much of anything) so he couldn’t qualify for medicare or disability. There are no jobs he can get with his lack of eye sight and numerous other health problems that sometimes don’t allow him to stand up without intense pain and nausea. He cannot afford insurance. We are all human…we are all tax payers (with a few exceptions)…there will most likely be a time in everyone’s life, whether that be at age 20 or 75, where we just might need a to dip into a program that we’ve helped pay for the majority of our lives. Those of us who never have to rely on anything like that should consider ourselves very very lucky! I do not believe that mandatory health care is the answer, although I am not completely opposed to some sort of socialized health care, either. I think what I believe in the most is catching up with the offenders who are committing insurance fraud or fraudulently taking advantage of the systems (whether they be illegal immigrants or citizens). Our country needs to take care of it’s own before we can continue to take care of everyone else. We have always been able to take care of everyone else and now that we’re in a recession and bad state of our own, who will bail us out?
December 14th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I think Tami is correct. It is unconstitutional. Two quick thoughts:
1) To drive health care premiums down, the government needs only to create an environment of increased competition – create incentives for more companies to enter into health care; the more competition, the lower the premiums and higher quality care. It is the same with any industry.
2) How can Congress constitutionally mandate that every citizen buy their health coverage, when the congressmen have their own healthcare they will continue to follow? Just as they have their own retirement plan. They tend to be above whatever they vote in for us. You can bet that if each congressman had to purchase this same plan, they would make sure the Plan was a great one – not a plan for which they must threaten or bribe to get votes. Any bill which must subvert to threats and bribes in order to pass must not be able to stand on its own merits. Any bill submitted for a vote, if a good bill, would stand on its own merits and earn votes, no matter the party affiliate. Any bill good for America would be non-partisan, naturally.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:25 am
I love this! Finally someone has stepped up and said, if you force us to have insurance we are going to challenge you, America no matter were she is right now, should still be free. It’s great that someone looked at the Constitution to remind the Senate that they are out of bounds trying to force people to have to go through the government to get their insurance needs met. I agree with several comments that there is a way to do this without the goverment controlling and taxing the whole thing.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Baloney! If you don’t make people pay for things, they won’t. Tax them, and they’ll do it and not even think about it. We all pay for roads with pavement, and even though some of us don’t even drive or own a car, the roads still helps everyone who pays the taxes for it in some way. OK, a lot of that is from gas tax, but you get what I am saying. Also, we elect the people that decide how much to tax and for what, so ultimately we did decide to have a health care bill.
December 18th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
One small piece of the auto insurance discussion that has been omitted. States that require Auto Insurance also give the individual the option of showing ( proving ) financial stability through proof of savings in excess of $XXXXX. (differs by state) instead of carrying insurance.
Where a large part of the cause of inflated insurance rates comes from is the litigation factor. If that were controlled, all insurance would be more affordable
The question sat hand is’” will we die from the disease or from the cure”
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Follow the money – ALL the money. You will alwyas find the truth disguised in “helping the people” legislation. Look at the entire bill, earmarks and special deals to get bills passed. It’s all a front to take and control your money. Congress doesn’t see this as your money but theirs – PERIOD. Follow the money – all the money.
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Comment to RWA…Really? You REALLY think taxes are the answer? I know I THINK about all the taxes I pay…every day!!! I voted to be represented based on what I want. Reps and Congressman are to vote the way the majority of the people from their State want NOT what they THINK they need. I read that Nebraska votors are NOT happy with the sellout by their Senator Ben Nelson. I hope they eat him alive when he returns home!!!
You are very correct, however, that people won’t pay for things if they don’t have to. That is the reason why so many (not all) people are uninsured. They don’t have to pay for their own health care BECAUSE OTHERS, MEANING THOSE OF US PAYING TAXES, WILL!!! As I said in my December 4th comment, “…first fix that which is causing the problem: illegal immigrants, frivolous lawsuits, unwarranted settlements granted by extreme liberal juries, politicians in the pockets of drug companies, 4th generation welfare recipients,…”
Here’s another idea: If people want to contribute to the health care of others, including illegals and those Americans who feel they are “entitled”, then let Obama legislate a charity fund where people can do that. Let’s see how much is donated by those that agree with and support this Health Care bill. I’d be interested in knowing that dollar figure.
December 28th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Obtuse, desperate argument on the part of right-wing extremists, and insurance company shills.
This will never work, despite the efforts of this well-funded extremist group, called “The Fund for Personal Liberty”. (About as deceptive a name as you can ever imagine.)
December 28th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
No matter the problem, no matter the issue, no matter the specifics, when it comes to government, the solution is always the same: Just cut taxes and eliminate regulations!
That will solve everything, don’t you guys think?
Health Care: Cut taxes and eliminate regulations! Problem Solved!
Environmental Pollution: Cut taxes and elimination regulations! Problem Solved!
Education: Cut taxes and eliminate regulations! Problem Solved!
Jobs and the Economy: Cut taxes and eliminate regulations! Problem Solved!
God, this is so easy! Why didn’t I just think of it before? Why, we could keep going this way forever! (And if the Republicans had their way, they would…)
December 28th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Hey Gayle,
Here’s another idea: If people want to contribute to the military occupations of other countries, including large bases in “dangerous” places such as Japan and Italy, then let conservatives start a charity fund where people can do that, instead of forcing me to pay for it out of my hard-earned tax dollars.
Let’s see how much is donated by those that agree with and support the occupation of foreign lands. I’d be interested in knowing that dollar figure.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:28 am
STN, I’m not familiar with “The Fund for Personal Liberty”. I do, however, recognize extremists and radicals. Oh, and by the way, do you know the definition of a Liberal? It’s someone who gives away everything that they do not own. Sound familiar? It should. It’s the mindset that, unfortunately, has dominated the US in 2009 and created a deficit that my grandkids won’t be able to repay. And this Health Care Bill is just going to add to it. STN, Do you think the Politicians have to live under this same Health Care System? Oh, that’s another characteristic of a Liberal. They think that others will always look out for them and keep their best interest in mind. God, not Congress, save us all.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Seeing comments like those from STN makes me wish we didn’t have political parties. Why must someone who cares about freedom from government mandates be considered a right-wing extremist? And out of curiosity, is it even possible for me to support fully socialized medicine while feeling an individual mandate is unconstitutional, and be considered a right-wing extremist?
I want a functional government, but one that stays out of my life. I want the government working behind the scenes to provide things that make the country better. I don’t want the government guaranteeing a disfunctional industry a massive pool of forced customers. I don’t want the government to force me to buy something, even if it’s something I’ve always bought throughout my entire life. That just doesn’t feel right to me. I cannot feel free if I’m told what to do, how to do it, and who to write the checks to, or face being treated like a criminal for failing to comply. I like feeling free. I thought feeling free was the main point of America.
Just to be absolutely clear, I would have no problem whatsoever with a tax increase of the exact amount insurance premiums would cost. It is not about the money. It is about being told I need to pay that money to someone that isn’t elected by the people, and can’t be kicked out of office if I feel like they’re not representing me properly. I don’t trust a for-profit corporation to look out for my best interests, and feel it is absurd for my elected government representatives to tell me I must trust them (with all evidence pointing towards that trust being misplaced, at best) to serve my best interests even when they are guaranteed my money, even if they do nothing to deserve it.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Richard, first thing, vote. If you’re not happy with the candidates to choose, make it known or run for office yourself. Additionally, you would not be a forced customer, but you are a taxed citizen. This is more like making the homeowner with no children pay for taxes that support the school system than forcing someone into a store making them buy an item regardless if they needed it.
People forget the basics of insurance here, and unfortunately it has been about health insurance and not health care. For insurance to truly work, you need a pool of buyers, some that will use it, a few that will get way more out of it than what they put in, and a strong majority that are light users. The carrier gets the money from all to pay for the users plus a small profit (yes it is a business, unfortunately), and the users get the security that if something bad happens, they have coverage. Unfortunately, in this case the light users don’t always feel compelled to buy in, the users that need it oftentimes are stuck in heavy-user pools with high premiums, and coverage is getting worse and worse as the hospitals/health care workers get stuck. And with health care, those that don’t pay, well the bill is passed off to those that do and the insured, which also throws off the system.
Ideally, only those that need health care should have to pay for it, but that would never work, so something has to be done, especially because our current system is broken.
December 29th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
RWA, how can I vote better for the policies I want when a presidential candidate wins the primaries while making a well-articulated point (repeatedly!) how an individual mandate is not is needed, but to make insurance more affordable, then that same candidate pushes for legislation with “shared responsibility” through an individual mandate as soon as he wins?
And how would I not be a forced customer? If I don’t buy insurance, I’d be fined. That is not like paying taxes. Taxes are fair because I am paying the government for government-provided services, and they apply to everyone equally (even the uninsured). Taxation is absolutely different than being required by the government to pay a for-profit corporation for services provided by a for-profit corporation. I can’t just vote for the guy who will be in charge of my health care choices, but I instead now get to vote for someone who is one step further removed and effectively powerless. To reiterate, I would fully support socialized health care as I would still feel free when paying my fair share to provide for the country’s health.
I don’t believe it is right for America, a free country, to fix any sector of the economy by requiring participation. Countries with socialized health care prove insurance is not a required component. If the concept of insurance doesn’t work without forced participation, then insurance needs to not exist. We’re America. We can come up with something that works.
If an individual mandate passes, I’m dropping my insurance coverage. It will suck to be uninsured, but I like feeling that I still control the ability to vote (through dollars or democracy) for what I want. I’m willing to risk financial ruin, being accused of tax evasion, or even death, in order to keep that feeling. If I die as a result of being uninsured, at least I die feeling free. Sorry, but I love my freedom.
December 29th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Richard makes some good points.
And I agree. There are problems with forcing citizens to buy private, for-profit “healthcare insurance”, particularly when it won’t pay for your health care if and when you become seriously ill or injured.
The ONLY purpose of insurance companies is to make a profit. They don’t exist to actually help people that need health care.
The best system would be a single-payer program, which exists in many other countries and is a big success. It costs much less and covers every citizen for everything. And it is paid for out of your general fund income taxes.
The next good way to go is a National Health Care System, similar to the one in the United Kingdom.
However, the worst way to go is keeping our current system.
So, while the current legislation is far from great, it’s a step forward. I’d rather we all be forced to buy private, for-profit “health insurance” then keep the awful system we have now. Once we’re all part of this system, and we can see its abuses and shortcomings first-hand, we’ll have more incentive to move to Voluntary Medicare for All—a much better way to go, particularly if you own your own business, as I do.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
After browsing through the replies, It bothers me that one issue remains undiscussed or I simply missed it. Here in California (among many western states) the health care being received and not paid for isnt being done by Americans. Not implying that there arent Americans that would do such a thing! but the majority of these “free health care seekers” are illegal aliens. Instead of our Government trying to force more unwanted (look at the polls) legislation down our throats why dont they clean house and enforce whats already on the books? Why should the rights and freedoms of those that were born here and came here legally be shoved aside and become more expensive because of those who did not? And as for government ran healthcare……….. medicare. enough said? Insurance companies may be purely for profit but they realize that in order to make a profit they need customers. If you have ever had any dealings with a government agency of any sort then you know what i mean. (ssa,dmv,irs) when is the last time they did anything positive for you? Try making a complaint against them if you can figure out how. the employees know that reguardless of the outcome they have a job so there is no incintive for them to preform their jobs in any kind of timely or respectful manner. And on an ending note of my rambling whatever happened to “BY THE PEOPLE. FOR THE PEOPLE
December 30th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Ken, I can almost hear the violins while reading your post. Yes, there aren’t enough jobs out there right now, people get layed off, they have less money, etc…. Well, the answer I know of is called COBRA – every layed off employee is entitled to it for 18 months with half of that time (recent bill passed) covered by a 65% subsidy!!! A pretty good deal if you ask me! Anyway, what this also requires is a savings account – anyone heard of that!? Save a little so if you are jobless you can pay for the things you say you have to have – healthcare! Sob stories only take you so far and right now they’re a dime a dozen. Health care costs just like your car, house, clothes, etc – so why not be prepared to pay for it?
December 30th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Lynn: Here! Here! Well said! Every legal American has the RIGHT to the benefits offered them in the USA. HOWEVER, they first have the OBLIGATION to society to do everything in their power to be a productive citizen. Don’t buy that which you can’t afford or which you don’t need. Show financial restraint and responsibility. Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:50 am
Lynne and Gayle – Are the two of you incredibly naive or just disingenous? Lynn states “the answer I know of is called COBRA”. Only because of the government’s intervention can you have COBRA coverage at the discounted rate. Where do you think the funding for that offset is coming from? It is not from the insurance companies or the employers. Only because of the government can you retain coverage through COBRA for as long as you do. Do you know what insurance rates are after COBRA ends if you are still unemployed and in need of insurance? Conversion from a group plan to an individual plan for a family with pre-existing conditions can run as high as $3,000 per month. Having been involved in a reduction in force process, I know this to be true. How do you save for that? What would you do? Eat or pay insurance fees?
Gayle, how do you espouse your opinions and at the same time state “Lynn: Here! Here! Well said!” Lynn was advocating for the COBRA offset paid for by the government. That is a social safety net that you were previously complaining about. Which is it? Is it good or evil?
You are foolish if you think a social safety-net equates to socialism. Safety nets like unemployment compensation and COBRA are not socialism. They are temporary efforts to sustain our citizens until they get that next job. With a national unemployment rate of 10%, how soon do you foresee putting everyone back to work and contributing once again to our tax base? Nobody is saying we should or could be a socialistic society. I don’t believe in them because I believe they take away an individual’s incentive to do better. I do believe in treating our citizens fairly and not blindly contribute to the fat cats and companies that stand to make billions off the rest of us. Unbridled capitalism is just as dangersour as socialism to most of us. You need a balanced approach… or are you happy with the prices you pay for gasoline, for drugs, for insurance, etc.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Gayle and Lynn demonstrate their ignorance of the law and reality once again. COBRA is, of course, a government program. As is Medicare.
Do Gayle and Lynn advocate the end of any and all government programs? If not, why not? After all, isn’t any government program, by definition, “socialist”? It is, actually. The fire and police departments are socialist; the military is socialist; state universities are socialist; public schools are socialist; roads and bridges are socialist…I could go on and on an on.
Any good society has an intelligent blend of both capitalism and socialism. We need both, not one or the other. There isn’t a nation on earth that doesn’t have both in varying degrees.
Anyone who says, “I’m 100% against socialism!” generally doesn’t know what they’re talking about, as they use government programs and services every single day, like all of us.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Ken & STN, Disingenuous? Foolish? Ignorant? Can we abstain from the name calling? This is a professional website. Without going to Webster for a definition of Socialism, to the best of my (ignorant and foolish) knowledge it can be described as a system of government control and ownership of industry and control of the “free” market. So, with the recent government buyout of the auto industry, and banking industry, and now the health industry, for someone to say that we are not moving toward a socialist society is naive. Being a socialist society doesn’t only pertan to the Gov’t programs offered. And Ken, I was not advocating the recent subsidy changes to COBRA (I think how it was before was adequate), but rather agreeing with Lynn about SAVING and being responsible and prepared; it’ part of that whole “obligation” thing I commented on. I suggest you think more deeply and in a broader sense about the comments that are being made on this blog and maybe you will understand that which is being said.
January 5th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
STN, I see you are still plugging away at your socialist agenda. This column was supposed to be debating the constitutionality of Mandated Insurance. This Administration has chose to ignore the Constitution in most everything it does. As a matter of fact, the President has stated (2003) that the Constitution is too confining. It says what cannot be done (negative). Remember that speech, STN?
When we have a leader like that, one who has surrounded himself with others of like beliefs that are not vetted in any way………….well, you get to where you question everything that is mentioned. But for now, right is still right, and wrong is still left…….we will just have to see where it goes from here.
January 5th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Yay for Government healthcare! Woot woot!
January 5th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
If our government gives people money to pay bills, and money to buy food, and money for childcare, and money for retirement, and money for disabled people, and money for whatever else someone may need( I know there is more that I didn’t hit on) then are they going to hand out the money to pay for this mandatory healthcare? And if they do then do I get to pay more in taxes? A large chunk of my income already goes out in mandatory fees (taxes). Maybe I should get away from this “working for a living” thing and get some handouts. I pay all my bills and work hard for every dime I have. I know most of you do also.. Is this healthcare thing fair to us. Is it fair to anyone who already has insurance and /or works for a living? I guess we wait and see, there’s nothing we can do about it anyway. Does anyone even remember why we have a Constitution? Why we didn’t want Brittish rule? Too much government, thats why. The township I live in in Michigan has more than 200 ordinances.(laws) the state has more on top of that, and the feds have more on top of that. I don’t mind paying my share, but geez, enough is enough already!!
January 5th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Actually, it is indeed constitutional, as are any efforts of the government to act in the interest of its citizens.
United States Constitution: Section 8 – Powers of Congress
“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.”
Clearly, what that means is that we the people have the right to elect members of Congress who in turn will help create the conditions to improve our lives. Come on, people. Without “government” (which some of you use like a curse word) there would be no public schools, no roads, no bridges, no tunnels, no police, no fire department, no military, no public colleges and universities, no libraries, no water supplies, no animal control and on and on UNLESS each of us had “private accounts” for each of the aforementioned.
I don’t want to call 911 for the cops and be told “Please give us your account number” before they’ll respond. And I don’t want to have to “pay the toll” before I can drive my car down the street.
Yet, when it comes to medical care, before my little girl, who was in a car accident or has cancer, can see a doctor, they first thing they say is “Account Number Please!”. Translation: “ALL WE CARE ABOUT IS GETTING PROFIT FROM YOUR CHILD’S ILLNESS.” Disgusting.
I’m glad the US Constitution protects we citizens from this. Now, it’s up to Congress to realize this and stop listening to insurance company lobbyists.
January 6th, 2010 at 7:59 am
“common defence and general welfare” Hmmmmmm…
The unemployment rate is, according to the news, only 10%. I don’t know what the % is for people who are insured but I would guess it is more than 70%. National healthcare is not for the majority, and don’t we already have Medicaid and Medicare? Is this not being taken out of my tax dollars? Government has become a “dirty word” because of the self serving “career politicians”. Our Senators and Congressmen were originally ment to serve for a limited time. They were supposed to leave their “careers” and serve the public (for pay) and then return to their lives. That was why the monitary benefits for this service “to the people” are very generous. TERM LIMITS.. are the answer for our stagnant government. We need fresh ideas and people who want to serve to make change, Not serve to get wealthy. …Just my opinion, and now I’m done.
January 6th, 2010 at 9:33 am
EAW: Valid and very real point. Glad you brought that up.
STN, you quote “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.” What debts has the current Administration paid? Haven’t they created more debt in 1 year than those before?. And UNIFORM? Does Congress and the President have to live under the proposed Health bill….uh NO!
January 6th, 2010 at 9:45 am
STN, you say it the best.
January 6th, 2010 at 10:34 am
[...] Is federal mandate for health coverage unconstitutional? [...]
January 6th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Not that I’m an expert or anything but I can tell you what the problem is. Historically, insurance has been tied to employers as a benefit they offer to their employees and government provided for those who no longer work (retirees of course and those who are truly disabled). However, since the signing of all the free trade bills our insurance has went out the window while our jobs have went overseas where it is not expected for corporations to pay for benefits or pay decent living wages. I would bet if our jobs were brought back we would get our insurance back and lower insurance premiums as well as most who wanted jobs would have jobs and would be able to afford their own coverage.
Some may say I’m dreaming and be that as it may, I’m just saying that more than likely there is a direct correlation between losing jobs to overseas cheap labor and our insurance disappearing like dust in the wind.
The bottom line is this, when we were a strong nation in manufacturing most people had darn good insurance but when we started getting away from this with “Reagan’s service industry” we started loosing it all. Insurance in the days when U.S.A. manufacturing was strong it may have not been perfect but it was sure a whole lot better than it is now.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:11 am
To MMAn:
You may be correct in saying that offshoring jobs to third world countries would provide employment but no benefits in certain instances. However, a great majority of those jobs were exported to countries that provide health coverage to all residents. It is paid in that nation’s tax base, and in many cases is much superior to what we areexperience here in the US. General Motors insistance in the past that too much of a car’s cost was in health benefits compared to the Japanese was invalid. The Japanese cost was in the price. It was just that the cost was in taxes paid to provide health care and not in a gilt edged labor contract.
I am a Capitalist. However, I also view our Constitution as “providing for the common welfare.” In orther words there are certain things which should not be driven by the profit motive. How can we dispute the fact that numerous Euopean and Asian countries have a longer life span, lower infant mortality, deliver generally better care as well as have a dramatically lower share of GNP spent on healthcare? In other words, they provide a better return on investment than we do. I am sick and tired of those who automatically ‘knee jerk’ the fact that the government is always inept. Today, any enterprise that has gotten too bloated becomes inept. That applies to insurance companies, care providers and others who refuse to change with the times. There is a certain amount of social responsibility necessary in a democracy, and health care is just one of those areas. The system is broken. The providers either refuse or are incapable of fixing it. When that point is reached, it is the duty of the government to responsibly step in. Stop listening to the radicals on either side and take a middle of the road approach on this issue if we are to survive.
Dave Fletcher
January 6th, 2010 at 11:36 am
NMAN….You do make a good point. Our job corp is definitely different now than in the post war (WWII) years when Employer provided insurance came in to being (provided as a perk to get the best employees). Many of our producers today are in small companies, in their own businesses, and the like. I have said from day one of this so called Health Care Reform (pains me to call it that), the Employer should be taken out of the mix. In our small business, every year the insurance company has to come in and provide new literature, hold a meeting with the crew, redo all the paperwork……..and on and on. EVERY YEAR. Our broker, whom I have become friends with disclosed to me that out of every $ paid for insurance, 57cents goes to administrative functions. That is ridiculous. We could pay our people the $300 a month we pay for their meager health insurance policy, and let them buy their own that they would keep whether they stayed with us or went to a new job, or whatever. If the entire State was pooled, and health insurance policies were personal, with a tax deduction for the premiums, as well as any co pays or etc, it would become cheaper if for no other reason that cutting down on the expensive administration costs (which, by the way, will not go away under ObamaCare…..will only get worse, as the Government is terribly ineffecient in adminstration,). Couple this with a system to stop friviolous lawsuits, and a $250,000 cap on damages, two of the major costs would be contained. Young people should take advantage of the HSA to keep their costs to a minimum. Government could subsidize any citizen that is disabled (mentally or physically). If Health Insurance policies became a personal expense, the charges would be monitored more carefully by the individual owner, as his costs would be pertinent to his usage. If he didn’t get good service, he could find an insurance company that serviced him better….that would go a long way to control premiums. And the reason Medicare became necessary is that the employer was paying for the insurance and when someone retired BOOM gone is the insurance. If everyone carried their own insurance throughout their entire lives, Medicare could go away. But I am just preaching to the choir…………..
January 6th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
JAGGER…While I do agree with your argument, the fact of the matter is that most people who are employed by small businesses in my community end up going to the food stamp office for assistance…and they qualify. If they qualify for this, then more than likely they are not going to be able to purchase healthcare for themselves. I’m just saying that traditionally, the good quality jobs were with the corporations like GM, Ford and the like- the companies that put us on the map. What kind of insurance could one purchase for $300 a month. I don’t know of many “small businesses” that pay their employees enough money that they don’t qualify for government assistance. Most of them are below the poverty level.
DAVID FLETCHER…Are you telling me that Mexico and China provides healthcare to their people. Last time I checked Mexico was still a third world country where labor is cheap actually slave wages. China is an emerging industrialized nation with the largest population in the world an you tellin me they provide healthcare for their people. NO WAY. I haven’t mentioned Thailand, Bangladesh and all these other places we see on the tags of our shirts we wear everyday. I do agree with you that the government needs to step in but to what extent I do not know. All I can say is this, the worthy poor (those who want to work but can’t for age or disability reasons, I’m not talking about those scabs out there who wouldn’t hit a lick at a snake if it was gonna bite them because I could care less about them) have too long been taken advantage of in this country while insurance companies, drug companies and healthcare providers have lined their pockets.
January 6th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
NMAN………We operate in Arizona (Phoenix) and we have a United Health Care policy that costs us $297. per month for our (12) people. It is an 80/30 plan, with $2000 deductible. Not the greatest, I know, but it is paid for by the company, and will cover any major catrastophe. I know it is probably hard for a $15 hr person or less to cover the 30% part, but everyone should have to pay something, or they wouldn’t be frugal at all. Just spend without conscience…..sort of like our government.
How little does a person have to make to qualify for assistance? Maybe in the big eastern cities (or California)….but here in Phoenix it is not that bad. Sometimes I think Congress and the President thinks all areas are like New York and DC. They are not. Some of the people who have to rely on welfare should move out of the big cities where it is cheaper to live.
January 12th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
The requirement for people to get insurance gets around a few of the problems of the bill. If you don’t have preexisting conditions exemptions any more, people will wait until they are sick before they get insurance. This would make insurance incredibly expensive. Its like people who are diagnosed with terminal diseases who try & get life insurance.
The other problem is that many of the uninsured are young who would like to spend their money elsewhere. I am a little angry about this group personally. I am the chump who has been paying through the nose for insurance my entire life. These people do pay for small things themselves, but there are few in this country who could personally shoulder a $2 million bill for cancer treatment etc. These are the costs that are problematic. I was diagnosed with cancer at 25. Treatment as far as I can tell cost a half a million dollars easily. And keep in mind that was over 10 years ago, & I had an “easy” form of cancer to treat.
If people want to use the system, they should pay into it. Its no less constitutional than requiring car insurance, speed limit maximums, or educational standards. If you don’t like the requirement, then pay the tax & quit complaining.
January 14th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
It’s funny that congress thinks it can mandate citizens to buy insurance while one of the enumerated powers, under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, is to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization” – a topic for which crongress has instituted rules making enforcement highly subjective and differentially enforced across the country and across various nationalities.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Let’s make this simple: an individual should have the right to refuse to purchase health insurance. The conequence of that, of course, should be not receiving care when ill or injured unless the individual can pay cash. In the industry, it’s called being self-insured rather than fully insured. If someone wants to take the risk of self-insuring, that’s OK with me.