Is the health care law constitutional? / Yes, it expands liberty!

[yortsed snacilbuper]

In a nutshell, the mandate spreads the risk, thereby reducing the cost, of expanded health coverage.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/is-the-health-care-law-constitutional-yes-it-expands-liberty-627884/

[rhett o rick]

1. It's as Constitutional as taxing us to pay for war. Now that's a mandate. nm

[elleng]

3. 'In the 1960s,

Congress taxed everyone to establish Medicare because private insurers would not, and could not afford to, provide health insurance to the elderly. In 1974, President Nixon wrote to Congress:

One of the most cherished goals of our democracy is to assure every American an equal opportunity to lead a full and productive life. Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job. ... For the average family, even normal care can be a financial burden while a catastrophic illness can mean catastrophic debt. Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come in America.'

[elleng]

2. 'Mr. Santorum complains

that, regardless of its benefits, the individual mandate "is not the American way of doing things." Republican attorneys general from 26 states agree and have sued to have Obamacare struck down as unconstitutional. This narrow conception of "the American way" was not, however, shared by the founding fathers.

Shortly after ratification of the Constitution, the U.S. government required some citizens to purchase private goods and, yes, health insurance, when necessary to the nation's well-being.

The Second Congress enacted, and President George Washington signed, The Militia Acts of 1792, which required "every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States" to join their state militias and "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein."

In 1798, President John Adams signed into law "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen," which required privately employed seamen to pay a portion of their wages into a government fund "for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions." . .

In 1905, the court found in Jacobsen v. Massachusetts that a state did not impinge on an individual's constitutional rights by mandating vaccination from smallpox (and penalizing those who refused to comply). The Supreme Court explained "liberty, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others."'

[Owlet]

5. Good job, Ellen..

You've really done your homework on this one.

[elleng]

6. Thanks, Owl; its what I DO,

and frustrated at being RETIRED attorney AND can't get argument on radio in friends house, gotta get into car and HOPE argument's on C-Span NOW!!!

[unblock]

4. of course it's constitutional. many people think anything they dislike must be unconstitutional

the fact is that there's plenty of room for congress to make bad law, sometimes VERY bad law, and yet it's completely unconstitutional.

for instance, congress could decide to tax income up to $100,000 at 99.9%, while taxing income beyond that point at 0%. that would be absolutely horrible on many levels, but it would be perfectly constitutional.

the mandate is constitutional if only as an income tax -- which it technically is due to the exemption for people below a certain income level. it's equivalent to a tax on income of a flat $400 (or whatever the "penalty" is) on income beyond that minimum, with an offsetting income tax credit for anyone who gets health insurance. this looks very much like the tax credits they give for buying energy efficient windows and such. perfectly constitutional.

is there scope for terrible law of this form? of course, but there's scope for terrible law in many forms.