I don’t think we will have examples of individuals suffering as a result of the mandate until it is enforced (and to criticize the plaintiffs for failing to publicize individual stories of people suffering under the mandate is unfair; it isn’t in place yet). Until then, there are people who are suffering under other provisions in Obamacare and it would make sense to find a way to put their stories forward to the public. Yesterday I attended a panel discussion at Cato’s new facility in DC (most excellent in all respects). Michael Cannon was able to point to at least two cases where people have been caught in attempts by their insurance companies to unload them as a result of the price controls. (You can watch the discussion online at CSPAN.)

Second, if you prefer to anchor the mandate as being essential to
putting into effect the guaranteed issue regulation, then you must argue that
it does not put into effect the regulation but it corrects an unwanted side effect:
insurance companies can no longer be profitable. So the principle that falls
out is that if there is ever a regulation that causes an unwanted side effect,
including that business is not as profitable, an economic mandate is then a
proper remedy. But all regulations have compliance costs, so most regulation can
be “corrected” by adding a mandate. There is no limit on how long ago the scheme
was put into place or how much cost-shifting occurs, Congress need only have a
rational basis for trying to correct some perceived problem (consider was the
cost-shifting that was part of EMTALA a bug or a feature?). Again, this is a
broad power over the consumer and represents an extra-Constitutional means to
leverage an individual’s income, in essence a sixth type of tax implemented
through the Commerce Clause.

Many will argue that SDP will kick in to save the day or that the
political process will naturally limit this power as it does to a degree with
income taxes and unwanted wars, but this still implies that Congress has the
ability to mandate the purchase of any product or service without a true
conditioning link to interstate commerce and without being necessary to enforce
a commercial regulation. This affords the majority unacceptable power and sets
the Court in the uncomfortable position of trying to weigh the cumulative
impact of just-one-more mandate. The Court needs to rework the Commerce Clause
test to require an explicit act of production, consumption, or distribution to
authorize a mandate.

That said, I have to wonder how many “fair weather libertarians” oppose the ACA on personal liberty grounds (as opposed to the federalism issue) yet nod approvingly at the Virginia statute.

I labelled the link to these comments “link”, and the Giant Electronic Brain changed “link” to “161 comments”, though now it says “link” again as I edit…

I really liked the health reporter they had on as well.  I think it’s easy to get lost in the academic debate without actually thinking through the real world nuts and bolts of the law.  That was a good idea on their part to address both.

1) I’m an anti-mandate person, I am somewhere, and in particular Virginia (although at this particular moment I’m in North Carolina), and I think the proposed vaginal ultra-sounds were a horrible idea. Although I do have the intellectual capacity to recognize a difference between regulation of an industry, its participants, and the practices and procedures within that industry whose players have voluntarily entered into it compared to forcing people into the industry regardless of their actual will. 

2) No problem, how about we also ensure we allow insurance companies to rate groups of people based on relative risk? A few states have gone against this idea since it seems to make some people feel like it’s unfair. For example, men tend to pay higher vehicle insurance rates based on as a gender they having higher costs. But when the exact same rational is applied to women and health insurance it’s unfair. But that is really an insurance problem, not a care problem.

So what are the health care problems? Access to drugs, not enough doctors, lack of medical schools? Okay well I guess a State that wants more doctors could always go about funding more residency positions since at present we graduate more doctors than can be matched. But that would be a State by State thing now wouldn’t it.

Feel better now?

Perhaps it does, but then, again, many veteran claims for care are either denied or inadequately addressed.  This is the reality of American government regulated health.  Perhaps a few other industrialized countries do socialized medicine better than we– perhaps–  but those countries can scarcely afford nanny statism these days for a number of reasons, chief among them the demographic seismic shifts they’re experiencing with aging “native” populations, an increase in underemployed and “entitled” working age citizens and the influx of differently cultured guest workers, new citizens and dependent wards of the State.  

I don’t see how the U.S. and Democratic Party can forestall the ultimate failure of Ponzi-like medical and Social Security safety nets while simultaneously discouraging independent business and increasing entitlement mentality (hey, Free! contraception for the women folks with so many more goodies/ “rights” to come.)

I do think, if they find a sympathetic story, they should make sure that it is someone actually affected, rather than a “Joe the Plummer” story of someone who claims to be affected until you look more closely at the story.  For example, as others pointed out in the comments, why doesn’t the VA cover Matt Sissel’s medical care?

And no, our high school didn’t have a civics class.  All they offered was “Saul Alinsky’s Death to America 101″.  I took it for 6 years.  Because that’s how long it took me to graduate from high school.  Because I’m stupid.

And in response to your other post since debates appear to only be able to go 6 replies deep, I was being lazy.  The point was that the enumerated powers were not created in a vacuum.  A bunch of smart, flawed, people sat down and decided that Congress should have the sole, unlimited, power to declare war.  They also decided that Congress should have the sole, unlimited, power to regulate commerce.  The limitation to those very broad powers (and all the other enumerated powers) are only common sense and elections.  Congress CAN declare war on Canada today.  Congress CAN mandate that you must buy broccoli.  Congress CAN make your taxes 100%.  Congress CAN create a post office that costs 1 trillion dollars.  Congress CAN borrow 1 trillion dollars to build that post office.  All of those things have an exactly 0% chance of occurring.

Someone conversant with 18th century usage would at least be cognizant that “proper” could refer to propriety, as you insist, but is at least as likely to mean “sufficient,” or “adequate.” For example, a proper forge would be one fitted out with the tools necessary for a blacksmith to accomplish his work. Given the context, I think the latter usage is more likely the one intended. To say “necessary and proper” was an 18th century equivalent of today’s “necessary and sufficient.”

Further, ACA clearly lays the groundwork for the national centralization of citizens’ medical records Obama and his party have been seeking for some alleged medical and pricing efficiency (which the Feds are simply marvelous at achieving– see our unsustainable Medicare, Medicaid, Mediscare, Mediscam, etc. programs)?  Are we to believe such information will not be abused for personal or partisan snooping purposes as currently being done to the Tea Party by the IRS or for instituting “fairness” regulations based on stats they then own and massage, as ruinously done with the mortgage industry, college tuition and energy sector? 

Dollars to donuts, if the ACA is upheld, we will either knowingly or unwittingly be giving the government DNA material through our medical providers in a few years (“for our own good”.)   Smart people with their own medical insurance will pay the penalty each year rather than give up their information to our over-controlling Big Brother.

The argument would be that the government can ban blueberry picking as part of it’s regulation of the interstate market in blueberries, but that it can’t require everyone to go pick a bushel of blueberries every day in order to subject them to other regulations related to the blueberry market.

It’s the “Congress can force everyone into the market in order to regulate them however they want” portion of the argument that leads to an unconstrained federal power to do anything Congress wants if the mandate is upheld.

Disclaimer: I also disagree with the current level of power afforded congress under the interstate commerce clause by the courts, so really, I think the blueberry/marijuana examples are also outside of Congress’ Interstate Commerce Clause powers, but that’s not current USSC precedent.