Challenge Question of the Day
I would love for anyone on the left, especially the buttmunches like Rep. Grayson to tell me, under which provision of the U.S. Constitution does Congress have the power to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance?
Here's the text of the U.S. Constitution.
And while sadly, the bill being voted on in the Senate Finance Committee is not available for the public to read (transparency), here is the chairman's mark up report.
Notwithstanding the fact that I challenge anyone who knows the law to tell me what enumerated power applies here. (I know what power the Congress is attempting to use, but it's weak. But let's see if all these folks out there (kind of like the ones who don't know who is paying for those checks they're getting) have a clue), here is what this bill will propose:
Beginning in 2013, all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase coverage through (1) the individual market, a public program such as Medicare, Medicaid, the Children‘s Health Insurance Program, Veteran‘s Health Care Program, or TRICARE or through an employer (or as a dependent of a covered employee) in the small group market, meeting at least the requirements of a bronze plan, or (2) in the large group market, in a plan with first dollar coverage for prevention-related services as recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force – except in cases where value-based insurance design is used and cannot have an unreasonable annual or lifetime limit coverage or a maximum out-of-pocket limit greater than that provided by the standards established for HSA current law limit in order to meet minimum creditable coverage. Exemptions from the requirement to have health coverage would be allowed for religious objections that are consistent with those allowed under Medicare, and for undocumented aliens. An individual enrolled in a grandfathered plan would be deemed to have met the responsibility requirement.
In order to ensure compliance, individuals would be required to report on their Federal income tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum health coverage for themselves and all dependents under age 18...
Now you know this is to require most young people to purchase insurance. And what if they don't? The answer will lead you to the hint to the answer to the question above.
Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax of $750 per adult in the household. This per adult penalty would be phased in as follows: For 2013, $0; $200 for 2014; $400 for 2015; $600 in 2016 and $750 in 2017.
The excise tax would apply for any period for which the individual is not covered by a health insurance plan with the minimum required benefit but would be prorated for partial years of noncompliance. The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. No excise tax will be assessed for individuals not maintaining health insurance for a period less than or equal to three months in the tax year. However, assessed excise taxes for those not insured for more than three months include the entire duration the individual was uninsured during the tax year.
Non-compliance with the individual responsibility to have health coverage shall incur no criminal penalty; and neither civil penalty nor interest shall accrue for failure to pay such assessment in a timely manner. Collection shall be limited to withholding of federal payments due.
What does the Constitution say?
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
Interesting huh? Now what is interesting as well is, if you don't get insurance, you have to pay an excise tax. If you don't pay the tax, under this plan, the only thing the government will do is garnish any tax refund check you may coming to you. Now why is this important folks? You see for this plan to work, everyone has to buy into the system. There's no teeth to enforcement (granted, the power buttressing the legislation is weak too), so this means the plan will not be adequately funded.
So where is the money going to come from? And what's even more amusing, this plan will not insure everybody. So you have a massive overhaul; costing gazillions of dollars, which barely changes anything vis a vis coverage from the current situation. Sounds futile no?
Well....I look forward to a healthy exchange of ideas .....
"Notwithstanding the fact that I challenge anyone who knows the law to tell me what enumerated power applies here."
The ability to regulate interstate commerce is what some people are claiming. At least, that seems to be the most frequently cited 'justification' I've come across.
Do I win a Kewpie doll?
I don't know about you, but warning letters from the IRS, having to check "yes" whenever there's a form asking "do you owe any back taxes," and being denied my federal refund every year would be more than enough to make me either pay the excise tax or get the needed coverage, even if they're not going to come banging on my door.
Cubabuzz, close but no cigar. The congress may use in part interstate commerce to impose regulations etc. on the majority of employers; but it will not apply in this instance. Remember, the law would be: All individuals must own health insurance. If not, then you pay a tax. Hence the hint as to how the Dems in Congress are trying to get the law to pass muster.
Eddy, most folks don't necessarily get tax refunds especially if they have a lot of exemptions and have the minimum amount withheld.
Mike, then I'm not sure what you are thinking about. I trust you will let us know eventually. Note an article at Salon lists various arguments that liberals are using. (I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me that either side has ammunition and eventually this will have to go to the Supreme Court.)
http://www.slate.com/id/2224258/pagenum/all/
I'll cut and paste some select paragraphs, possibly related to what you are hinting at:
---
The legal question isn't whether it would be unusual for the government to compel people to buy health insurance. It's whether it would square with the Constitution. Mark Hall, a professor of law at Wake Forest University, argues that it would, in part based on the commerce clause, which since the New Deal has permitted the federal government to expand its power in various ways by defining various activities as "interstate commerce." Although health delivery is often local, Hall writes, "most medical supplies, drugs and equipment are shipped in interstate commerce." More to the point, "most health insurance is sold through interstate companies."
Yes, counter Urbanowicz and Smith, but "it is a different matter to find a basis for imposing Commerce Clause related regulation on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction." Does the commerce clause cover your refusal to engage in interstate commerce?
Well, yes, Hall in effect answers, because when a person declines to purchase health insurance, that affects interstate commerce, too, by driving up health insurance premiums for everyone else.
---
Urbanowicz and Smith next reach for that perennial conservative favorite, the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which says the government may not take property from a citizen without just compensation. "Requiring a citizen to devote a percent of his or her income for a purpose for which he or she otherwise might not choose based on individual circumstances," Urbanowicz and Smith write, "could be considered an arbitrary and capricious 'taking.' …"
But according to Akhil Reed Amar, who teaches constitutional law at Yale, the case law does not support Urbanowicz and Smith. "A taking is paradigmatically singling out an individual," Amar explains. The individual mandate (despite its name) applies to everybody. Also, "takings are paradigmatically about real property. They're about things." The individual mandate requires citizens to fork over not their houses or their automobiles but their money. Finally, Amar points out, the individual mandate does not result in the state taking something without providing compensation. The health insurance that citizens must purchase is compensation. In exchange for paying a premium, the insurer pledges (at least in theory) to pay some or all doctor and hospital bills should the need arise for medical treatment.
Actually, with respect to individuals, they are using the tax code -- the power to tax for the general welfare power to mandate coverage.
Here's the problem: Congress can raise your taxes (which is what this purports to be), but they cannot use the tax code to mandate personal behavior which is where I see the problem.
The law with respect to the individuals is not buttressed on the commerce clause (of course that may change, but since no one can see the actual text of the bill; I can only go by the chairman's report)
The long and short of it is that they represent us. They are not our bosses. We are theirs. But they are behaving like dictators and shoving down our throats what is obvious to most Americans, that most of us don't want this in any form, Period.
What law gives them the right to do what very few Americans want?
[...] | Author: Asem Eltaher Cubabuzz, near but no cigar . Read more from the example source: Challenge Question of the Day | Babalú Blog: an island on the gain … Posted in Health, Uncategorized | Tags: always-see, close-but, congress-may, Health, instance, [...]