The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate for Health Insurance

The New England Journal of Medicine ^ | January 13th, 2010 | Jack M. Balkin, J.D., Ph.D.

[The Duke]

If the states called a constitutional convention then this crap could be reigned in very quickly.

[OldDeckHand]

"persons with religious objections"

I'm so glad that this provision is in there as well. This is reflective of one of my HUGE hangups with respect to the "Amish exception" for Social Security.

For the first time in 70 years, we have a Supreme Court that might just use the 14th Amendment against libs.

They're going to exempt someone based on religious preference? How does that not violate the establishment clause under 1st Amendment and the equal protection clause under the 14th?

They're codifying a religious preference. It can't be anymore clear.

[grumpygresh]

Thanks, just did.

[dr_who]

The term “individual mandate” is misleading for two reasons. First, the law would not actually require all individuals to purchase insurance. The mandate would not apply to dependents, persons receiving Medicare or Medicaid, military families, persons living overseas, persons with religious objections, or persons who already get health insurance from their employers under a qualified plan.

In other words, force more people onto Medicare and Medicaid, causing the programs to collapse twice as quickly. No point in debating these people. They're nuts.

[Mobilemitter]

It is a tax, which people would not have to pay if they purchased health insurance. The House bill imposes a tax of 2.5% on adjusted gross income if a taxpayer is not part of a qualified health insurance program.

So, now that we know it is all about meeting some 'qualified health insurance program', who do we have to go to for the qualifications? Hmmmmm, let me guess, maybe the big fat communist in charge of this whole thing? Give us a frickin break, don't you think we the people can discernce from whence the crap floweth?

D.C. (doing communism)

[A Strict Constructionist]

“Harvard, Yale. Typical.”

When the Civil War starts we give them the Sherman treatment.

[freeandfreezing]

You're exactly right - by that nitwits logic you could have a tax on people who register in the Democratic party -- after all that surely effects commerce, they are more likely to buy Birkestocks, granola, or a Toyota Prius. And charging a tax because somebody fails to do something, like buy health insurance, or register in the Republican party, surely isn't unconstitutional.

So I guess we should plan on such a tax. It might raise a lot of money, particularly if it is extended to include membership in groups with similar liberal tendencies.

[Kellis91789]

There have been more than the required 2/3rds of States with applications to Congress to call an Article V Convention. Presently, there are already more than the required 34 States with applications for several subjects, including Tax Limitation, Balanced Budget, and Apportionment.

Congress has simply ignored the fact. They’ve been round filed by the Judiciary Committee in the Senate.

There are currently 38 States who’ve announced their intention to fight this mandate. What are the odds, the GOP in Congress would take this opportunity with all eyes on Congress and the flouting of the Constitution to demand recognition of the calls for an Article V Convention ?

Would those 38 States that are mouthing objections at this point go so far as to get their legislatures to send a unified call for an Article V Convention to consider an Amendment barring the Federal government from requiring an individual to purchase or penalizing a failure to purchase any good or service ?

[Kellis91789]

“The mandate would not apply to dependents, persons receiving Medicare or Medicaid, military families, persons living overseas, persons with religious objections, or persons who already get health insurance from their employers under a qualified plan.”

This is not entirely true, since any existing plan — especially HSA plans with high deductible — will not meet the government requirements. So they will, in fact, be forced to buy a new product.

And what constitutes valid “religious objections” ? Have they spelled out Quakers, and Amish, and Seventh Day Adventists, and Christian Scientists ? Or can anybody claim this exemption ?

[The Pack Knight]

I also have hangups on the "Amish exception" for much the same reason I have hangups with conscientious objector status for Quakers. You ought not enjoy the benefits of citizenship without shouldering its burdens.

Constitutionally, though, while it might violate the establishment clause to include the exception, I think it might violate the free exercise clause to omit the exception.

When the government gets this heavily involved in the private affairs of its citizens, the establishment and free exercise clauses may become incompatible.

[Ancesthntr]

I don’t give a damn how you label the 2.5% of income that you must pay if you aren’t in a “qualified” plan - it is a FINE. The government is telling you that you must buy a particular product, or you will pay.

Oh, and if you don’t pay the tax/fine/whatever the phuk they choose to call it, YOU GO TO PRISON.

Guess what: don’t go to prison (i.e. try to stay free and resist arrest), and they send a bunch of armor-clad JBTs and KILL YOU.

What’s next? Buy a Government Motors car every 3 years, or face a fine, err, excuse me, a “tax?” Get a mortgage every 7 years from Fannie or Freddie, or face a fine, err, excuse me, a “tax?” Where does it end? Can they f’ing government force you to spend every single penny of your after-tax money on “qualified” plans of one kind or another?

So much for the Constitution and our Republic. It is gone. They’ve been deathly ill for quite some time, and Obami & Pelosi just pulled the plug with extreme prejudice.

That hag says health insurance is a “right.” Horse$hit, a right is something that you have just because you are a human being, something that is independent of what others will give you. However, you have no right to a particular good or service that is paid for by others (especially on pain of fines or prison) - that is just another name for slavery. Good old Dems, still advocating for slavery in the 21st Century.

[Dems_R_Losers]

Sorry, but sprucing up the risk pool of private insurers so they can lose less money is NOT a constitutional role of the federal government, nor is it my responsibility! If I pay cash for my health care, I am not "burdening the system" in any way, and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to force me to BUY insurance, as opposed to INSURING myself! I HAVE health insurance! It's called a SAVINGS ACCOUNT. I put into it every month the amount I am NOT paying to Blue Cross/Blue Shield. And guess what? I am WAY ahead, even after a couple of surgeries and ER vists.

I refuse to believe that this bill can make it against the law to insure yourself! What have we come to????