Why the individual mandate philosophically is right/ or wrong

[cybrsage]

Do you even have the faintest idea how government works?

Is this your way of saying "Obama signed it into law"? Or are you showing you do not know how government works?

 

[sactoking]

You are not avoiding the health insurance market with a high deductible plan. It is interesting that you are claiming by purchasing a high deductible insurance policy that you are not participating in the insurance industry.

Furthermore, you are confused about my point. The federal government has the right to regulate health care in the US through the commerce clause, and the means by which it is doing so is through the health insurance industry. Furthermore, they are not regulating non-activity. As I said before, just because someone wants to claim they aren't participating doesn't make them not naive or a liar for claiming so. It's not a question of whether or not this is the best way to do it, simply if it's constitutionally permissible for them to do so. The vast majority of legal experts believe that it is. (and I do mean vast majority, the ABA polled legal experts and more than 85% agreed that it is constitutional)

So in short, the ACA is simply not based on what you think it's based on.

A HDHP mandates a self-insured retention by the insured. Any loss within that retention is not subject to coverage. If the vast majority of losses are small enough that they are within the retention, and they are since the retentions on HDHPs are often in excess of $1500 per person and $3000 per family and most losses are less than $500, then the consumer is not participating in the insurance market.

HDHPs are, to a certain degree, "catastrophe health insurance" plans. Health catastrophes comprise a large portion of health loss dollars but a small portion of health loss occurrences. Thus, most health care costs incurred by HDHP participants (an ever-growing % of the population) are not health insurance related.

The Federal government can regulate health care through the commerce clause. Health insurance is not health care. Health insurance is regulated by the states not the Federal government through McCarran-Ferguson. The Federal government's attempt to regulate care by regulating insurance when they don't normally regulate insurance is asinine.

The Fed is regulating non-activity, it's just not non-activity in health care. They're regulating non-activity in health insurance. Again, insurance != care.

Hell, I don't have a problem with Medicare. My only real problem with Medicaid is the ever-increasing number of unfunded mandates which put the states in budget trouble. I don't even have a problem with universal healthcare if the law had been enacted properly. My problem is with the mechanism used in the individual mandate; a mechanism which is inefficient, illogical, and sets a dangerous precedent.

 

[xBiffx]

Surely at this point you realize just how ridiculously far you're reaching.

Sure I do. Exactly as far as the Constitution lets me reach and no further. A concept liberals have failed to grasp.

 

[shira]

Given the logical liberties assumed in that line of reasoning there is absolutely no economic activity or inactivity that cannot be somehow rationalized as interstate commerce; that's what I have a problem with.

Don't own a car? Well, buy one at the government's "insistence" since walking deprives the GMC plant in Louisiana of revenue.

Don't eat rice? Well, now you have to since eating Twinkies instead deprives the Calrose company of California of revenue.

Don't own a treadmill? You better get one since not owning one has been linked to obesity which is a health problem which is interstate commerce!

Yes, you can make this argument, but in none of these areas is the government and societal interest compelling, as it is for health care.

If there's no mandate to purchase health insurance, the American health care system is on a death spiral. And the SIZE of the health care industry dwarfs everything else. None of your examples is remotely analogous.

Rice: There no "downward spiral" for rice producers caused by not everyone eating rice. And even if there were, companies in another sector of the food industry would take up the slack. Also,there's no threat to America's food supply if rice-producers were to go belly up.

Cars: If you don't buy a car from GM, you'll buy one from another company. Again, there's no downward spiral; no threat to society; no need to compel individuals to purchase cars.

Unhealthy lifestyle: A person's unhealthy lifestyle may actually SAVE money. If you die early of a heart attack, you won't be around at age 85 to get Alzheimer's - a much greater burden to society.

But the most compelling counter-argument to your point is that NO ONE is advocating other coercive measures. Arguing that the mandate opens the door to forcing people to purchase rice is like opposing same-sex marriage by arguing that it will open the door to people marrying their dogs. When you can point to new coercive laws modeled on the health care mandate, you have the beginnings of an argument. Until then, the slippery-slope argument is just BS.

 

[cybrsage]

But the most compelling counter-argument to your point is that NO ONE is advocating other coercive measures.

Yet...they are testing the waters with healthcare because they know the libs will eat it up and defend violating the constitution as something we need to do.