R. Richard Schweitzer: PubliusFLI have been reading the proposed wordings, looking for exactly the thing you charge. However, so far, I have found no language that states one must be “insured” as a condition for seeking or receiving medical care.Could you give a citation, please.

Sure: “may justify a requirement like” describes a hypothetical that I came up with to get closer to the scenario of Wickard than the actual proposed bills.

I have been reading the proposed wordings, looking for exactly the thing you charge. However, so far, I have found no language that states one must be “insured” as a condition for seeking or receiving medical care.

Could you give a citation, please.

I believe all that means is that they do not accept Medicare’s payment schedule. They charge more, and bill patients directly. The patients in turn obtain reimbursement from Medicare at Medicare rates.

What the relevance of this is to the discussion, or how you know the best doctors do this, is another matter.

A. Zarkov:
Let’s remember farmer Filburn did something– he grew wheat. The mandate applies to everyone regardless of what they do or don’t do. That’s a far cry from the circumstances in Wickard.

Right. So Wickard probably doesn’t justify a flat “you must buy health insurance” requirement. But what I was saying is that it may justify a requirement like “if you want to purchase medical care, you must buy health insurance.” In other words, if you break your leg and want to let it heal on its own, fine. But if you want to see a doctor, you’re doing something (choosing to participate in the health care market), and must do so according to Congress’s regulatory scheme for the health care market: you have to buy insurance. I think Wickard was a horrible decision, but there you go.

The mandate deals with a free rider problem. It is clear that health care costs money. Budget experts suggest in the long run the whole program will save money. But, the mandate isn’t set forth to further some sort of “illusion” in this regard. If nothing else it is not the “whole” reason. Put aside if free rider or some other reasons are sound. It simply is not the “whole” reason.

This talk of “illusions” like it is some big conspiracy is troubling. People who have different views than you can be quite wrong. Trying to convince us they are sneaky tricksters is a bit harder.

It also [as some argue here] has enumerated powers that can apply in the regulation of health care that is discussed here. Per this power, they can require you to buy things from private individuals.

Now you want to go beyond legal issues and introduce practical considerations.

I want to do both. Partially, this is a matter that they are interrelated. We live in the real world, so setting up cute hypos about how things might work in theory without keeping in mind how the real world works robs constitutional principles of real value for most of us. So, it is useful to remember that most people don’t live on investment income. etc.

Forced requirement of purchasing medical insurance is nothing more than a form of indentured servitude. Adverse selection is a stupid diversion. That can apply to any insurance, yet what other insurance is mandatory in of itself? If your home is fully paid for, no one is required to by home owners insurance. Yet those who own their homes outright can go naked and some do therefore under adverse selection they would make homeowners insurance more expensive than it might otherwise be. Same for disability. Same for auto insurance. Not everyone who lives in San Francisco or Manhattan owns a car
but under adverse selection those individuals who could drive but don’t cause insurance to be more expensive than it might otherwise be. Blending in policies that in theory can never result in a claim certainly would result in an overall lower risk rate and cost for those who do need the coverage.

What the communist democrats are playing with is fire, sooner or later there will be a backlash and when it comes it may well rollback a great deal of the FDR/LBJ and Obama entitlement state.

A. Zarkov: Ok if you want to do that, then I submit the the mandate is completely unnecessary. If it’s so important to insure the 47 million uninsured (is this number even accurate?) including some 17 million illegal aliens, then Congress can simply raise the income tax to provide the uninsured with medical care just as it provides food stamps and other benefits. The whole reason for the mandate is to create the illusion that the new medical plan won’t cost anything.

I just caught this comment. You don’t seem particularly interesting in trying to understand the arguments of people who disagree with you. Your claim that it is completely unnecessary is unsubstantiated. The work of economists like Stiglitz, Arrow, Akerlof and many others points to the problem of adverse selection in health insurance markets. Now, you can disagree with that — the empirical evidence on health insurance and the existence or non-existence is thin. On the other hand, the fact that many of the uninsured are young (and therefore probably healthy) and the anecdotal problems of many relatively health people in attempting to buy health insurance on the private market point toward adverse selection as a problem.

Aside from the adverse selection consideration, why not just subsidize health care for the uninsured directly? Well, first, government already does this in one form or another to the tune of about $40 billion per year to help hospitals cover the cost of caring for the non-Medicaid indigent. Second, hospitals are notorious for overcharging people who are uninsured. I got to see this price difference first hand when I went to the hospital one time: the hospital wanted to charge me $1300 for a procedure but my insurance company settled it for $700. If government starts paying hospital bills directly, hospitals will be able to take this price discrimination to new and outrageous levels — who’s going to stop them? Patients will stop complaining about being overcharged because it isn’t their money. Do you want government to impose price controls for a significant chunk of the U.S. population who are uninsured? That’s a terribly slippery slope toward NHS or CanadaCare, now isn’t it? Sounds more socialist to me than mandatory health insurance.

A. Zarkov: You are trying to create a theory by substituting “decisions” for “activities.” But how would you square that with Lopez? Lopez obviously decided to bring a gun to school and acted on the decision. Yet the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have the power to regulate that activity or decision under the commerce clause. Lopez tells us that the reach of the Commerce Clause is not infinite.

Have you read the Lopez decision? I suspect you have not. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because the government never specified a plausible theory under which possessing a gun in a school zone impacts interstate commerce in the legislation. In the Harrison decision, I believe the Supreme Court said that something has to have more than an “attenuated” impact on interstate commerce to fall under federal jurisdiction. As I argued above, the collective failure of many people to purchase health insurance likely has a substantial impact on the health insurance market and that market, by your own concession and by existing precedent, is subject to regulation under the commerce clause.

You’re right – I had forgotten about this. I don’t agree with your other examples, but this one applies.

Totalitarian? I think you have no clue what that word means.

I think it was pretty well-established that he has no idea what “slavery” means, either.

Probably just two words out of a very, very long list.

Well, if you earn no income and pay no taxes there’s no penalty for not buying a GM car. I don’t see how the credit forces you to do anything. It’s an incentive, not coercion.

Totalitarian? I think you have no clue what that word means.

Still, I admit I don’t like GM cars either.

After all, being a lib is all about never having to say sorry.

On the contrary, it seems most cons think being a lib is about always having to say sorry.

I guess I’m not seeing your point either. My qualifications pointed out that in my view, Madison was right, and “provide for the . . . general welfare” is not an independent grant of power to Congress at all. If Madison and I are correct, anything Congress wants to spend its tax revenues on has to be justified under one of the other enumerated powers of Congress. How this amounts to a “free-ranging grant of power,” as you described it, is beyond me.

But even Madison didn’t think Madison was correct. The gap between what he did as president and what he said before and after his tenure is enormous. We have basically ended up with Hamilton’s vision of the “general welfare” except we pretend it’s from the commerce clause. So which school of thought really prevailed there?

PubliusFL:
Wickard is about as close as you can come, probably.The gov’t didn’t say “you must buy grain,” but it did basically say “if you want to use more grain, you must buy it rather than growing it yourself.”I suppose if you analogize that to health care, perhaps the gov’t could say “if you want any health care, you must have health insurance.”

Suppose you don’t want health care? There are people who don’t want anything to do with doctors such as Christian Scientists. Some people might prefer to pay out of pocket as they need medical services and want to part of any plan. I can tell you that the best doctors opt out of Medicare, some people want these doctors.

Let’s remember farmer Filburn did something– he grew wheat. The mandate applies to everyone regardless of what they do or don’t do. That’s a far cry from the circumstances in Wickard.

I don’t know why anyone who is not a socialist should be hostile to the idea of a federal government of enumerated powers. But this is evidently what we have. I have my own theories as to why there is such hostility to American institutions, but that’s for another thread.

A. Zarkov: I don’t think so. Commerce clause jurisprudence, flawed as it is, does not support Congress having the power to require commerce. It’s true that Congress could create a constructive end run through its power to tax, but that’s not the Commerce Clause. But if you think so ok, give us the case, and point out where Congress has required someone to purchase something with no connection to any activity. I don’t think you will be able, but knows miracles happen.

Wickard is about as close as you can come, probably. The gov’t didn’t say “you must buy grain,” but it did basically say “if you want to use more grain, you must buy it rather than growing it yourself.” I suppose if you analogize that to health care, perhaps the gov’t could say “if you want any health care, you must have health insurance.”

MCM:
The existing case law supports allowing mandate for health insurance.

I don’t think so. Commerce clause jurisprudence, flawed as it is, does not support Congress having the power to require commerce. It’s true that Congress could create a constructive end run through its power to tax, but that’s not the Commerce Clause. But if you think so ok, give us the case, and point out where Congress has required someone to purchase something with no connection to any activity. I don’t think you will be able, but knows miracles happen.

MCM: Not really seeing your point here. Your qualifications seem to be perfectly compatible with federally mandated universal health care.

I guess I’m not seeing your point either. My qualifications pointed out that in my view, Madison was right, and “provide for the . . . general welfare” is not an independent grant of power to Congress at all. If Madison and I are correct, anything Congress wants to spend its tax revenues on has to be justified under one of the other enumerated powers of Congress. How this amounts to a “free-ranging grant of power,” as you described it, is beyond me.

1. You’re a statist.
2. “My aim is not to convince you. It’s more about mockery than argument.”
3. Abortion. Sodomy. Abortion. Sodomy. Abortion. Sodomy.
4. When in doubt, point out teh gayz and their “marriage”. Because that’s just like health care.

Did I miss anything? Oh, yeah. Gratuitous insults of “libs”.

DangerMouse: Kinda how like homosexual groups are re-writing the word “marriage”?

Or rewriting the word fag to refer to Harley riders?

Heh. You know, it’s things like this that make people hate lawyers. The Supreme Court’s decision was bunk, the analysis is bunk, Somin is right to note that if that is the state of the law then the law is bunk, and that this is not what the Founders signed on to when they created a government of limited powers. I’ll be perfectly honest that if you tell someone that he has to buy a car, even if he pays no taxes, or go to jail, there will be violence in this country on a massive scale.

I guess A. Zarkov was right: the government can tell you to do ANYTHING, unless it involves abortion or sodomy. Behind every lib is another Stalinist forcing people to do things that they don’t want to do. You guys really hate freedom, don’t you?

This tactic is a clear sign you are winning this argument.

My aim is not to convince you. It’s more about mockery than argument, at this point. You don’t have arguments with statists, you mock them for being statists.

Kinda how like homosexual groups are re-writing the word “marriage”?

This tactic is a clear sign you are winning this argument.

A person who pays no taxes and is forced to buy a car is being forced to work without giving them anything in return.

Except for the car… ???

Kinda how like homosexual groups are re-writing the word “marriage”?

Where in the Constitution can a person be compelled to purchase a car? Under what clause? And if based on the power to tax, how does that apply to a person who pays no taxes? And if it’s the commerce clause, please find me a case that requires a person to buy something if otherwise he would do nothing and is just standing there breathing.

I guess you didn’t read the article that engendered this entire discussion. The existing case law supports allowing mandate for health insurance. Somin agrees, given the existing case law. There’s nothing special about health insurance; you could have a mandate for cars, too, then.

A person who pays no taxes and is forced to buy a car is being forced to work without giving them anything in return. Even if you give them a tax credit later, they’re still being forced to work. People should have the freedom to not buy cars.

Not as much as you seem to think. At the most, it’s a power to spend on the general welfare. Madison argued that it was nothing more than an explanation of why Congress was granted the power to tax — that “provide for the common defense and general welfare” was essentially a shorthand summary of the enumerated powers following the power of taxation. This makes sense to me, as any other interpretation makes “provide for the common defense” senselessly redundant with the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia.

Not really seeing your point here. Your qualifications seem to be perfectly compatible with federally mandated universal health care.

Where in the Constitution can a person be compelled to purchase a car? Under what clause? And if based on the power to tax, how does that apply to a person who pays no taxes? And if it’s the commerce clause, please find me a case that requires a person to buy something if otherwise he would do nothing and is just standing there breathing.

As Madison (who wrote the section) wrote many years ago, all the other words in the Constitution would not be needed if there were such power.

That said, the several states as “sovereign” in their relationships with their electorates have “Police Powers” which are generally classified as affecting Health, Safety (and again) General or Public Welfare. This can be differentiated from the Federal or central government being further removed form the local social interactions that determine political actions.

Regrettably, Massachusetts can probably make a case (however tenuous) that its mandates to act (like inoculation) fall within its police powers.

At what point does forcing someone, who pays no taxes, to buy a car become a violation of the 13th amendment?

I guess at the moment you rewrite the dictionary so the word “slavery” or “servitude” means “forcing people to exchange money for goods” as opposed to “owning people as chattels and/or forcing them to work for you without giving them anything in return.”

Provide for the general welfare, by forcing you to buy GM cars? Right, MCM? You’d be forced to buy a GM car. Even if you have one already, even if you can’t drive. Even if you’re 98 years old and have no use for one. Does Congress have the power to require everyone to buy GM cars?

Yes.