General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo just 2 percent would be subjected to the Health Care mandate. 2 percent.
WASHINGTON -- Just 2 percent of the U.S. population would be subject to the aspect of health care reform at the center of a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court this week -- the individual mandate, a study released Monday by the Urban Institute found. The analysis said 98 percent of Americans would either be exempt from the mandate -- because of employer coverage, public health insurance or low income -- or given subsidies to comply.
Including those who are subject to the mandate, but would get subsidies, increases the total number of people affected to 5 percent of the population, according to the Urban Institute, a non-partisan policy research organization based in Washington, D.C.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/health-care-mandate-urban-institute_n_1381211.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Just saying.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)So that brings us to the really interesting question: Will the Court’s five conservatives strike it down regardless? That’s what we’re really talking about next week and that has almost nothing to do with law and everything to do with optics, politics, and public opinion. That means that Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in the Raich medicinal marijuana case, and Chief Justice John Roberts’ and Anthony Kennedy’s opinions in Comstock only get us so far. Despite the fact that reading the entrails of those opinions suggest that they’d contribute to an easy fifth, sixth, and seventh vote to uphold the individual mandate as a legitimate exercise of Congressional power, the real question isn’t whether those Justices will be bound by 70 years of precedent or their own prior writings on federal power. The only question is whether they will ignore it all to deprive the Obama of one of his signature accomplishments.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/the_supreme_court_is_more_concerned_with_the_politics_of_the_health_care_debate_than_the_law_.single.html
It's all about politics.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)I heard this morning about the argument that ACA will destroy the Contract Law. A policy is a contract. A contract is invalid if one party is coerced or forced to sign it under duress. Signing up or paying a fine? That is for sure duress and coercion in my book. I do not think having group insurance would exempt one from the law. If the company cancels the group policy the person would be mandated to enter in to a contract with an insurance company or pay the fine to the IRS. They can avoid the fine only while they have the group policy.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)There are a number of situations in life where the choice is "do X or pay a fine".
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)Is an insurance policy a contract? Or do you even know what a contract is? A contract can not be coerced or it is invalid. Sorry but that is a true fact. It is irrefutable. Look it up. You may learn something.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Yes. I write contracts all day. That's what I do for a living.
A mortgage is a contract.
Get a mortgage, get a tax deduction.
Don't get a mortgage, don't get a tax deduction.
OMG, it's the end of the world, the guy without the mortgage pays higher taxes.
That's how silly this duress argument is.
Try driving a car without insurance.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The point being made is that a contract which one had to purchase is void.
That's just ridiculous, and is a serious misunderstanding of the very narrow defense of duress in contract law.
In some areas plumbing work can only be done by licensed plumbers. So, if your pipes spring a leak, you have to hire a licensed plumber to fix it. Do you then turn around and say, "Oh, I don't have to pay the plumber because I was under duress?"
It's just a silly argument.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Since federalism has zip to do with defenses to breach of contract.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)A contract is voidable if one party can greatly influence another party thus overcoming that partys free will. A contract entered in to under excessive or undue influence lacks genuine assent and is therefore voidable. Also Duress. Forcing one to enter in to a contract through fear created by threats is legally defined as duress. Duress is both a defense to the enforcement of a contract and grounds for rescission. The State Car insurance Laws are a different animal. They come under License requirements. In fact when you sign your driver license you waive your constitutional rights through implied consent. You only have to purchase car insurance to get a Tag. You may not know as much about contract law as you seem to think you do.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)First off, you do not need to purchase insurance to get a driver's license.
You are totally misunderstanding the defense of duress.
IF *I* force you to enter into a contract with me which you would not have entered into but for the fact that *I* forced you into it, then you have a defense to your contract with me.
However, if your pipes spring a leak and your basement is going to flood unless you hire a plumber, you do not have a right to void the contract with the plumber you hire to fix it. You could have hired any plumber. No plumber forced you to hire them.
You are completely missing where the "duress" comes from.
In my area, you have to contract for trash pickup with any of several private trash services. Nobody is getting out from under those contracts by claiming duress because NONE of the private trash services is forcing anyone to contract with them.
But, just so I understand you....
You are walking through a field near town and a rattlesnake bites you in the leg. You are going to die unless you get an anti-venom injection. There is one doctor in town who has it, so you go to his office. He gives you the injection, and hands you a bill for his regular fee. You then turn around and say, "There was no contract, I was under duress!"
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)private insurance company what will happen? Will I have to pay a fine for not doing so?. What if I fear the consequences of not entering in to the insurance contract? Your argument holds no water. Better call a plumber.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)As I said above, you pay higher tax if you don't take out a second mortgage on your house. So? Get the mortgage or pay the tax.
If I don't make charitable contributions, I pay tax on the income I would have otherwise donated. So? Make the contribution or pay the tax.
As far as your subjective "fear" goes, that's neither here nor there. People buy things out of fear all of the time, like extended warranties.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)Good point. I will check it out. The Government is applying the Duress. And the fear of the fine. Will get back.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You're going to have a hard time getting around forms of "unlawful threat" or undue influence, when the species of "duress" you are talking about is a piece of legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president.
That's the basic circularity here. If you say it is Constitutional, then it can't be duress. Your point is that if it is duress, then it would have the effect of rendering a bunch of contracts voidable. So? When marijuana was outlawed, a whole raft of contracts relating to hemp were rendered not only voidable, but plain old unenforceable. Legislation can do that sort of thing.
Duress can render a contract voidable. That's true, but in relation to "is this law Constitutional" it's something of a "so what". The statute itself defines a whole lot of conditions with which insurance policies have to conform.
(But, really, what nitwit is going to be claiming his insurance policy is voidable in the first place? What's the set up for that? If you don't pay your premiums, they cancel your policy anyway. Is this somebody who never got sick but wants his premiums back, or someone who is trying to stop his insurance company from covering his illness?)
If I don't buy clothes, I'll get arrested for walking around in public naked. I didn't buy my clothes under duress either.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)I was thinking about someone who would want to sign up then void it if he did not use it. In order to get a refund of premiums. And also what it would do with contract law in general. I had not thought that the duress was caused by a third party. Could that void a contract? Or if the government would not be a party in the insurance contract. Do you think the ACA will affect contract law at all? I kind of think they will give it the stamp of approval. But leave a few outs for the future somehow.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...your model assumes one insurance company.
Let's say the guy was under "duress" to get insurance. There are insurance companies A, B, and C. He picks C. C says, "He could have picked A or B, he was under no duress to enter into this contract with me."
(and the rattlesnake doctor was providing services in an emergency, which is like duress, but actually works the other way)
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Search his username--that's how he interacts with everyone.
I am just interested in the pro and con of the SCOTUS case. I will be good with it however it goes. But on C-Span a Plaintiff brought up the Contract Law and how it applies. Personally I hope it is thrown out with the bath water. C-Span had a good segment this morning with two Law Professors.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The number quoted this morning is 16 million people will be "subject" to the mandate. I presume this means even those qualifying for subsidies. That's roughly half of the "uninsured" that were claimed to have been added by HCR. There's probably alot of mixing in there. Of the 16 million, it's unknown right now how many already had insurance anyway. I'd guess probably alot since just about anyone who is "self employed" probably qualified. What I haven't heard is the number that will be "exempt" from the mandate. I've tried to sort it out, but it is in the single digits no matter what, and it depends heavily upon predictions that probably aren't that accurate to begin with. You also have to sort out the terms "Legal residence", "Americans", and "uninsured people". These three groups aren't the same, and depending upon who is doing the talking, it changes things by 5% or so.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)bogus claims start to fly.
The so-called “individual mandate” – the provision under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires most individuals to carry a minimum level of insurance coverage and is now being considered by the Supreme Court – has emerged as the least popular element of the reform law and the prime target for its opponents. Yet in practice, the mandate may not be quite as far-reaching as the controversy over it suggests.
The vast majority of Americans already get insurance from their employers, Medicaid, Medicare, the individual market, or other sources of coverage, and will essentially automatically comply with the mandate once it goes into effect in 2014. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that about 80% of the 272 million non-elderly people in 2014 would be insured even in the absence of the ACA and would therefore already fulfill the mandate’s requirement.
Also, although the ACA requires people to maintain health insurance or else pay a penalty, the law allows a series of exemptions and special considerations, meaning that millions of individuals could be exempt from the requirement to maintain coverage.
The mandate’s exemptions cover a variety of people, including: members of certain religious groups and Native American tribes; undocumented immigrants (who are not eligible for health insurance subsidies under the law); incarcerated individuals; people whose incomes are so low they don’t have to file taxes (currently $9,500 for individuals and $19,000 for married couples); and people for whom health insurance is considered unaffordable (where insurance premiums after employer contributions and federal subsidies exceed 8% of family income).
- more -
http://healthreform.kff.org/notes-on-health-insurance-and-reform/2012/march/the-individual-mandate-how-sweeping.aspx
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)but who can tell right now?
It seems as if more and more working Americans are working in jobs without insurance benefits, and of course the mandate is not just to have insurance, but to have insurance with particular coverages, so many of the plans covering employees/self-employed right now don't qualify. It's likely that many of the waivered plans will disappear and those employees will be thrown on the exchanges.
In any case, surely the question of whether this is constitutional is not affected at all by the idea that less than 20% of Americans in any given year will be subject to the mandate!
If only 5-8% of Americans in any given year end up subject to the mandate, it argues rather for heightened scrutiny, because these people are going to be subjected to a scheme that doesn't affect everyone, or most people, and therefore it is all the more likely that they will find it difficult to find a willing ear when they have problems. Social Security and Medicare, for example, are nearly universal programs, so one may be sure that changes affecting those benefits are always hot-button political issues. But decisions affecting the lives of maybe 2% of Americans (those who are sick and are subject) are unlikely to be rapidly addressed.
Due process/equal access issues then arise. Clearly it is premature for these claims, but at some time in the future we are going to have such issues in the court, and after yesterday's debate, it seems clear that it is not just the conservative justices who are wary, but perhaps even more the liberal justices who wish at least to preserve access to the courts as a matter of last resort - which access is clearly enjoined in some cases by the law as written.
former9thward
(32,017 posts)They are assuming that employers will keep giving health insurance. Many employers have already said they will dump it. It is cheaper to pay the $2000 penalty than to pay for insurance.
Also it is assuming that the subsidies given will be enough for people to comply. Again that is doubtful. The subsidies will likely be just a fraction of what insurance costs especially since there are no cost controls on insurance companies.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)These assumptions only work if you limit the scope of study to a very small period of time. Yes, over a month or two the mandate may only effect 5% of the population. Over the life of the law, however, the majority of the population will end up subject to the requirement to carry insurance at all times. We all go through periods where we are between jobs or are working part time or unemployed, and at those times we would be required to purchase an individual insurance policy or pay the fines. This law could also impact our decision to quit a job, start a business, do volunteer work, etc. It will end up effecting most people sooner or later.
