"The objections to health care reform are ultimately founded not on a genuine concern about preserving state prerogative, but on a libertarian opposition to compelling individuals to act for the collective good, no matter who imposes the obligation. The Constitution recognizes no such right, however, so the opponents have opportunistically invoked “states’ rights.” But their arguments fail under either heading. With the help of the filibuster, the opponents of health care reform came close to defeating it politically. The legal case should not be a close call."
"The individual mandate is aimed at so-called “free riders”—people who fail to get insurance, and then cannot pay the cost of their own health care when they need it. Under our current system, in which hospitals must treat people regardless of ability to pay or insurance coverage, hospitals are able to recover only about 10 percent of the cost of treating uninsured individuals. That cost is ultimately borne by the rest of us. The federal government picks up much of the tab, and hospitals and insurers pass on the rest to their paying customers in higher fees. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 2008 the uninsured shifted $43 billion of health care costs to others."
"Without the individual mandate, the health care law’s more popular reforms—such as the bar on insurance companies denying coverage because of “preexisting conditions”—would actually make the insurance crisis worse. Knowing that insurers could not deny coverage or charge more for preexisting conditions, people could wait to buy insurance until they were sick. But then more and more of the people insured would be the sickest, defeating the very purpose of insurance—to spread the risk by creating a pool of funds that can be drawn on for payments. Premiums would skyrocket, meaning that even fewer people could afford insurance, and that would in turn induce still more people to opt out. As Wake Forest University Professor Mark Hall testified in Congress, “a health insurance market could never survive or even form if people could buy their insurance on the way to the hospital.”
"This is not just an academic prediction. When in 1994 Kentucky enacted similar reforms regarding preexisting conditions, but without an individual mandate, insurance costs rose so steeply that they became untenable, and insurers pulled out of the market altogether. Kentucky was forced to repeal the reform. Initiatives in New York and New Jersey faced similar problems. In Massachusetts, by contrast, where health insurance reform was coupled with an individual mandate, the system has worked; since 2006, insurance premiums there have fallen 40 percent, while the national average has increased 14 percent."
"In short, Congress had ample authority to enact the individual mandate. Absent a return to a constitutional jurisprudence that has been rejected for more than seventy years, and, even more radically, an upending of Chief Justice Marshall’s long-accepted view of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the individual mandate is plainly constitutional."
Is health care reform unconstitutional?
I copied a few paragraphs that stood out to me above, but the article is two pages long and goes into more detail about previous court cases, etc.
So people do want to be forced to carry insurance, yet when they NEED care they show up at a business that MUST treat them- This glitch is putting those in the business of providing care in the hole- Those fees are offset by the rest of us paying folks....many of whom are tired of shouldering the burden. With fewer people working, the burden is just too great. You can not have it both ways; refuse to have HC and then expect America to provide you with care and p/u the tab..it's just not sustainable.
We need true HC reform- affordable care , and decisions that are made between a patient and their HC provider...not some suit in a glass office with a view of downtown.
Answer by Sisteract at 5:52 PM on Feb. 2, 2011
Answer by Carpy at 11:36 AM on Feb. 2, 2011
Answer by lovinangels at 11:45 AM on Feb. 2, 2011
MA requires it
And the people of MA should decide if they want to fight the constitutionality of it. However, if you researched US Federal/State law~ states have "police power", which can authorize states to regulate where the federal government, which has limited/enumerated/powers~ cannot.
Answer by grlygrlz2 at 11:49 AM on Feb. 2, 2011
Answer by lovinangels at 12:15 PM on Feb. 2, 2011
Answer by LoriKeet at 12:09 PM on Feb. 2, 2011
Answer by SweetLuci at 11:54 AM on Feb. 2, 2011
Commerce clause, “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
Regulate the commerce among the states. If someone chooses NOT to particpate in the commerce (purchasing of a product/servicce), how can they be MANDATED/REGULATED?.... Government can regulate those who CHOOSE to particpate in the commerce. But they cannot mandate those who choose NOT to particpate.
Answer by grlygrlz2 at 11:57 AM on Feb. 2, 2011
Answer by LoriKeet at 12:10 PM on Feb. 2, 2011
Answer by LoriKeet at 12:36 PM on Feb. 2, 2011