Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gg cox who wrote (23586)	4/4/2012 10:26:58 AM
From: i-node	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I don't think you understand the issue. The question is whether our Constitution allows our Congress to require a person to buy health insurance. It is not about whether anyone would or would not be better off. It is not about eating or buying broccoli. It is not about right or wrong or how would the public best be served. It is simply about whether Congress has the right to dictate to a person that they buy a product they don't want. There are activist members of our Supreme Court on the left who want to try to make it about other issues. But none of that is within the Court's purview.

To: gg cox who wrote (23586)	4/4/2012 11:25:49 AM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Why oh why, is the Supreme Court and others hung up on whether the government could force it's citizens to eat broccoli. Because constitutionally our federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers, not general power only abridged by specific limitations. The broccoli example is a good analogy for showing why the individual mandate in the PPACA falls outside of its powers. The individual mandate in the new health care bill is simply common sense 1 - No it isn't. 2 - Its irrelevant. If it was common sense that still wouldn't make it a federal power. Should a citizen be allowed to choose not to pay his income tax without consequence and be allowed to ride for free on the backs of others who do? One of those limited and enumerated powers is the power to tax. That power was limited until the 16th amendment, not it more expansive than it was. Interestingly tough, in addition to the fact the the individual mandate isn't a tax, it wouldn't fall withing the constitutional limits for the American federal government if it was a tax. But that point doesn't matter too much since its a mandate not a tax. ----- Is the Health Care Mandate a Direct Tax? Jonathan H. Adler • April 26, 2010 3:59 pm Some have argued that it does not matter whether the individual mandate is a constitutional exercise of the power to regulate “commerce . . . among the several states” because the mandate — or, more properly, the penalty for failing to comply with the requirement to obtain health insurance — is within Congress’ power to tax. But is this so? Steven J. Willis and Nakku Chung of the University of Florida have a forthcoming article in Tax Notes in which they argue that if the penalty is a tax, it is a “direct tax” for purposes of Article I, section 9 and is therefore unconstitutional. Specifically, they argue that the tax is neither an income tax nor an excise tax, nor a proportional capitation tax, and is therefore not a constitutional exercise of the federal taxing power. (Hat tip: Lawrence Solum) volokh.com ------ This is commerce,effects commerce, yours mine and the governments. What "this" is in your post is unclear, but neither taxation, nor choosing not to buy health insurance is commerce. As a freemarket country, any American should be able to buy health insurance for themselves over the age of 65 There is no law directly against it but Medicare crowds out the market (other the Medigap, plans that cover things Medicare doesn't, and Medicare Advantage, private plans paid for by the government as an alternative to straight Medicare directly from the government.) the reason that they can't is collusion between private insurance companies and the government. No the reason they can't is that the government provides such coverage with low premiums subsidized by tax money. You might call Medicare Advantage collusion if you want, but even before it the private plans where crowded out, and they still would be if MA was dropped. Medicare isn't the government working with insurance companies to exclude private insurance. The insurance companies have no interest in being excluded. If Medicare didn't exist they would sell to the market it covers. With Medicare Advantage they get some of that market back, but not all of it.