Rationale for the Constitutionality of Obamacare

[Anarchist420]

http://blog.ometer.com/2011/04/16/individual-mandate-and-the-power-to-tax/

There’s a claim in these cases that the gov­ern­ment has never required peo­ple to actively buy a cer­tain prod­uct. How­ever, at least the enforce­ment of this require­ment, i.e. a tax sav­ings if you do buy, is pre­cisely equiv­a­lent to all the cred­its and deduc­tions you can already get for buy­ing var­i­ous things. Go into Tur­b­o­Tax and look at the cred­its and deduc­tions avail­able. You are “required” to buy all of that in exactly the same sense that you are required to buy health insur­ance under the new law — at least as far as enforce­ment goes. The pun­ish­ment is the same, you pay higher taxes if you don’t buy.
​

Is this a good argument in your opinion?

IMO, it's a pretty good one, because people have to pay a fee to stay out of jail. Almost all of the framers believed Health care was a "right"--if they believed a standing army and subsidation of industry via tarriffs was a "right", then they would believe that health care was a "right" too, if it had been made an issue in the 1780s. All of the framers of the Constitution believed in implied powers and socialized health care.

 

[shiner]

No, it isn't a good argument.

A good argument is:

Is cheesecake a cake, a pie or something else entirely?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It just doesn't stoke the same rage when you call it a tax penalty. But government mandate? Rawr!!!

 

[Lithium381]

like i've said before, they don't HAVE to require the public to by a specific product. they will simply raise taxes and buy it on your behalf, then give it to you.

 

[QuantumPion]

Is this a good argument in your opinion?

IMO, it's a pretty good one, because people have to pay a fee to stay out of jail. Almost all of the framers believed Health care was a "right"--if they believed a standing army and subsidation of industry via tarriffs was a "right", then they would believe that health care was a "right" too, if it had been made an issue in the 1780s. All of the framers of the Constitution believed in implied powers and socialized health care.

The difference between health care and national defense is that national defense protects everyone exactly the same and equally. Health care is redistribution of wealth to people that are sick and is only equal statistically, on paper.

You may argue "well everyone eventually gets sick", but this is too simplistic and wrong. Some people may spend their whole life eating healthy and exercising to avoid getting sick, while others may let themselves go and not care about maintaining their health precisely because they are not responsible for their own medical expenses. The group of people that lead a healthy lifestyle are thus directly subsidizing people that live unhealthy lifestyles. It is redistribution of wealth with a powerful moral hazard.

 

[Fern]

Is this a good argument in your opinion?
-snip-

No, not at all.

Reread this part again:

Go into Tur*b*o*Tax and look at the cred*its and deduc*tions avail*able. You are “required” to buy all of that in exactly the same sense that you are required to buy health insur*ance under the new law — at least as far as enforce*ment goes.

Under current rules, a deduction already exists for HI just like all the other things the author refers to.

So, he's effectively saying we already have a mandate to buy HI (just as he says we already have mandate to buy all those other things we get a deduction for).

His argument supports the current HI law.

The new mandate is something much different and therefor his example fails. You cannot equate the new mandate with the old (HI) deduction (nor, therefor, the other deductions he mentions), they are not the same.

Fern

 

[Capt Caveman]

No, it isn't a good argument.

A good argument is:

Is cheesecake a cake, a pie or something else entirely?

Dummy! It's cake!

 

[Fern]

It just doesn't stoke the same rage when you call it a tax penalty. But government mandate? Rawr!!!

It really isn't a tax penalty, it's a (civil) fine.

That's what the government usually does when you break a law - they fine you. (In more drastic cases, they imprison you).

By flowing this fine through the tax return system they hope to fool you into thinking it's just a tax, much the same way welfare-type payments are now called "refundable credits".

BTW: If the admin hopes to now call this a tax (opposite of their argument during passage), what happened to Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on those making less than $250k?

Fern

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It really isn't a tax penalty, it's a (civil) fine.

That's what the government usually does when you break a law - they fine you. (In more drastic cases, they imprison you).

By flowing this fine through the tax return system they hope to fool you into thinking it's just a tax, much the same way welfare-type payments are now called "refundable credits".

BTW: If the admin hopes to now call this a tax (opposite of their argument during passage), what happened to Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on those making less than $250k?

Fern

Civil fine, Rawr!!!

 

[Schadenfroh]

Interstate Commerce + Promotion of General Welfare

Resolves most constitutionality problems quite nicely.

 

[piasabird]

This is kind of like a law that requires a hospital emergency room to treat everyone that shows up whether they are a citizen, have health insurance or not. At the present time, some people when they are younger and healther elect not to buy insurance so they can spend that money on other things. It is not that they cant afford health insurance, they just choose to spend their hard-earned money on something else. Then these people show up at the hospital and expect to get health care on demand.

So how do you insure everyone has healthcare? This will be an added cost to keep track of everyones health insurance and then require companies to print out more federal forms for taxes, which is an unfunded mandate. It will also increase the cost of preparing taxes. This is just more stupid government interference!

How about the right to die without the USA Federal Government sticking its finger up your asshole?

 

[Jaskalas]

Interstate Commerce + Promotion of General Welfare

Resolves most constitutionality problems quite nicely.

<Constitution>
"Everything necessary and proper for the general welfare"
</Constitution>

The question is not whether it is constitutional, but whether the chosen Judge agrees with the end, and therefore finds the means to justify it.

 

[werepossum]

Interstate Commerce + Promotion of General Welfare

Resolves most constitutionality problems quite nicely.

This.

And.

<Constitution>
"Everything necessary and proper for the general welfare"
</Constitution>

The question is not whether it is constitutional, but whether the chosen Judge agrees with the end, and therefore finds the means to justify it.

This. Personally I'll be amazed if it's held to be unconstitutional. But as Fern said, the posted argument is fail.

 

[shiner]

Dummy! It's cake!

Pie!

 

[mcmilljb]

It just doesn't stoke the same rage when you call it a tax penalty. But government mandate? Rawr!!!

Why didn't they make it simple? Call it tax and then it's perfectly legal. You buy insurance you're exempt from the tax. It was as simple as that.

 

[mcmilljb]

<Constitution>
"Everything necessary and proper for the general welfare"
</Constitution>

That's not what the Constitution says. It says it can collect taxes to provide for the general welfare, and it has the power to do what is necessary and proper to do so. It does not mean you can do whatever you think is "necessary and proper for the general welfare." It's not a blank check for the federal government because states still have rights. Healthcare has largely been a right left up to states. Why do you think the federal government gives states money to implement medicaid or government welfare? Yes they put restrictions on it, but that's "necessary and [the] proper" way to make sure states spend it for the general welfare. After they have the money, they implement the programs how they see fit. You also have to remember welfare did not mean welfare programs back in the late 1700's. This is why I believe the mandate should be a tax with exemptions for qualified plans. There's nothing hidden, and it's simple and upfront.

 

[mcmilljb]

The difference between health care and national defense is that national defense protects everyone exactly the same and equally. Health care is redistribution of wealth to people that are sick and is only equal statistically, on paper.

You may argue "well everyone eventually gets sick", but this is too simplistic and wrong. Some people may spend their whole life eating healthy and exercising to avoid getting sick, while others may let themselves go and not care about maintaining their health precisely because they are not responsible for their own medical expenses. The group of people that lead a healthy lifestyle are thus directly subsidizing people that live unhealthy lifestyles. It is redistribution of wealth with a powerful moral hazard.

Tell the government to quit subsidizing unhealthy food. You can tax unhealthy food and then use the funds to provide cheaper, healthier food. I have seen the soft drink lobby put out commercials telling people "don't let lawmakers tell me what to buy." It's a freaking tax on an unhealthy food, get over it. Drink some water, it's cheaper any way.

 

[cKGunslinger]

It really isn't a tax penalty, it's a (civil) fine.

That's what the government usually does when you break a law - they fine you. (In more drastic cases, they imprison you).

By flowing this fine through the tax return system they hope to fool you into thinking it's just a tax, much the same way welfare-type payments are now called "refundable credits".

Fern

What about that civil fine they charge childless people? Why is that not outrage-worthy? :hmm:

Government-mandated breeding?! *rabble, rabble*

 

[Jaskalas]

That's not what the Constitution says.

Argue the constitution with those who perverse it and you will hear my quote ring true. They've granted themselves the authority to do everything, and that is how they did it. The Republic has fallen to mob rule.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Why didn't they make it simple? Call it tax and then it's perfectly legal. You buy insurance you're exempt from the tax. It was as simple as that.

It's as simple as that now. This "mandate" fervor is every bit as ridiculous as the dihydrogen monoxide hoax.

 

[ProfJohn]

Interstate Commerce + Promotion of General Welfare

Resolves most constitutionality problems quite nicely.

Especially if we ignore what the founders meant when they inserted the phrase general welfare into the constitution.

 

[ProfJohn]

Is this a good argument in your opinion?

IMO, it's a pretty good one, because people have to pay a fee to stay out of jail. Almost all of the framers believed Health care was a "right"--if they believed a standing army and subsidation of industry via tarriffs was a "right", then they would believe that health care was a "right" too, if it had been made an issue in the 1780s. All of the framers of the Constitution believed in implied powers and socialized health care.

Where the hell do you come up with these ideas?

Most of the framers were actually against implied powers and wanted the Federal government to be very small and limited and focused on the powers that they gave it.

"I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
-- James Madison

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.
-- James Madison

 

[ElFenix]

Why didn't they make it simple? Call it tax and then it's perfectly legal. You buy a GM car you're exempt from the tax. It was as simple as that.

:hmm:

 

[werepossum]

Where the hell do you come up with these ideas?

Most of the framers were actually against implied powers and wanted the Federal government to be very small and limited and focused on the powers that they gave it.

"I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
-- James Madison

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.
-- James Madison

Excellent post. However, we now live in the world of Wickard v. Filburn, of Kelo v. New London.

 

[hal2kilo]

The difference between health care and national defense is that national defense protects everyone exactly the same and equally. Health care is redistribution of wealth to people that are sick and is only equal statistically, on paper.

You may argue "well everyone eventually gets sick", but this is too simplistic and wrong. Some people may spend their whole life eating healthy and exercising to avoid getting sick, while others may let themselves go and not care about maintaining their health precisely because they are not responsible for their own medical expenses. The group of people that lead a healthy lifestyle are thus directly subsidizing people that live unhealthy lifestyles. It is redistribution of wealth with a powerful moral hazard.

Yea, you'll never get cancer if you take care of yourself. Tell that to a guy who had one of the healthiest lifestyles I've known (sculled everyday). He just died of lung cancer (never smoked) 1.5 years after he retired.

Keep living in your fantasyland.