1/6 of the economy is about to be socialized...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Concerning the auto-insurance example that was mentioned earlier, I think Rxnupe was just using that as a counter to people who say that it is absurd to require insurance of anyone. The focus of his argument isn't states vs. federalism; rather, the argument he is making is that governments already press insurance on people. As such, auto-insurance (a matter of fiscal responsibility, and perhaps public safety) is akin to health insurance (a matter of personal responsibility and public safety).

But the entire point is the issue of State and Federal powers and the jurisdiction of each. Auto insurance laws are under the jurisdiction of the state itself; that's why they vary from state to state. The Federal government hasn't ever put out a mandate about auto insurance because they're not granted that power by the Constitution. Massachusetts requires all of its citizens to have health insurance. The states have that power, the Feds don't. That's the main point of the lawsuits.

As for the whole argument about whether or not the government can 'mandate how US citizens live their lives...' I think that's an extremely scrupulous argument. A person doesn't have an unalienable right to live however they see fit simply because their actions have the capacity to affect, and thus harm, others around them. As an extreme example, an individual can't shoot his neighbor, despite however much he fancies the idea, for the rather obvious reason that it will harm his neighbor. Perhaps in a similar line of thinking, a person should not be allowed to assess and and govern their own health recklessly because doing so has the capacity to harm others as well (with indirect social impacts, indirect financial impact, and direct health impacts to not just the unhealthy individual, but others around them).

But if the majority of people who are uninsured are blue collar workers who simply can't afford it, wouldn't they have the sense to not be overly reckless with their health?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or 'property,' depending on which document one chooses to read) are certainly held in high regard, but they are not wholly inalienable, and are not pursuant to desire without bounds.

To me, the argument does feel like semantics. It all depends on how you want to write things. To put this in terms of polemics: It is not unconstitutional for the U.S. Government to secure the posterity of its citizens nor is it unconstitutional for the Government to protect the public from undue harm.

Certainly, that sounds a bit over-the-top, but that's how polemics work.

--Garfield3d

I know you're playing Devil's advocate, but I really hate the "government knows what's best" argument. How do we know they're really acting in our best interest? And mandating health insurance isn't protecting citizens from undue harm. I'm just as likely to catch a cold as anybody else who doesn't have health insurance. Hell, I've got one right now. Health insurance doesn't protect from undue harm. More commonly, it's primarily a preventative measure to enhance the quality of life after something bad happens and to make sure that you don't die from a simple cold.

Members don't see this ad.
 
But if the majority of people who are uninsured are blue collar workers who simply can't afford it, wouldn't they have the sense to not be overly reckless with their health?


You don't know many blue collar workers, do you :). Cuz the blue collar workers I know and have seen don't put their health at a priority. Just say'n
 
As an extreme example, an individual can't shoot his neighbor, despite however much he fancies the idea, for the rather obvious reason that it will harm his neighbor. Perhaps in a similar line of thinking, a person should not be allowed to assess and and govern their own health recklessly because doing so has the capacity to harm others as well (with indirect social impacts, indirect financial impact, and direct health impacts to not just the unhealthy individual, but others around them).--Garfield3d

This would only work if everyone had the same mentality. That will never be the case.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
But the entire point is the issue of State and Federal powers and the jurisdiction of each. Auto insurance laws are under the jurisdiction of the state itself; that's why they vary from state to state. The Federal government hasn't ever put out a mandate about auto insurance because they're not granted that power by the Constitution. Massachusetts requires all of its citizens to have health insurance. The states have that power, the Feds don't. That's the main point of the lawsuits.

These are the same arguments that the South used to try to strike down the 1964 Civil Rights Act. There is a small chance the Supreme Court will strike this down, but if you are realistic, you will have to admit the chances of this happening are small. The courts are very deferential to the legislature unless they attempt to take away some right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. That's why gun laws get shot down and campaign finance laws get struck down. Congress has almost unlimited power over interstate commerce and since this is 1/6 of the economy it clearly falls under the interstate commerce clause.
 
Sorry for the slow response, as it's been a bit busy (not that it'll be getting any better).

But the entire point is the issue of State and Federal powers and the jurisdiction of each. Auto insurance laws are under the jurisdiction of the state itself; that's why they vary from state to state. The Federal government hasn't ever put out a mandate about auto insurance because they're not granted that power by the Constitution. Massachusetts requires all of its citizens to have health insurance. The states have that power, the Feds don't. That's the main point of the lawsuits.

I may be ignorant on the issue, but I don't recall any legislation that explicitly says that insurance in general is specifically delegated to the states. If anything, I would feel that interstate commerce gives the federal government an important legislative mechanism and judicial ruling to push this across (something that Old Timer also alludes to above, so I suppose I'm sounding a bit repetitious on this point).


But if the majority of people who are uninsured are blue collar workers who simply can't afford it, wouldn't they have the sense to not be overly reckless with their health?

I don't think that such an assumption can be made, as such a calculation is, to say the least, ambiguous. The value that is a person ascribes to their personal health is notoriously difficult to predict, especially when considered with the other priorities in an individual's life. Individuals don't avoid reckless behaviors simply because they're uninsured.

On this point, I think it's important to note that the government isn't directly and literally controlling behavior. Rather, mandating health insurance makes the economic calculation easier, and thus encourages healthier behavior. In the one year following college where I had no health insurance, I avoided doctor's visits and I neglected to remove a steadily growing skin tag. I know girls who have either taken or avoided the HPV vaccine simply because of insurance coverage.

I know you're playing Devil's advocate, but I really hate the "government knows what's best" argument. How do we know they're really acting in our best interest? And mandating health insurance isn't protecting citizens from undue harm. I'm just as likely to catch a cold as anybody else who doesn't have health insurance. Hell, I've got one right now. Health insurance doesn't protect from undue harm. More commonly, it's primarily a preventative measure to enhance the quality of life after something bad happens and to make sure that you don't die from a simple cold.

I suppose my paragraph up there somewhat applies to this paragraph. As for the comment on undue harm, I meant that in the context of the behavior of others. Rates of cervical cancer and complications from HPV will cause undue social discontent in her family in addition to financial impacts (in terms of lost productivity from the female, and the increased cost of health care in treating a preventable condition). An individual with a steadily worsening cold is much less likely to visit the doctor and even less likely to grab a prescription; and the longer that individual is sick, the greater the chance is for him or her to pass it on to other individuals. I say these effects are undue because they are either preventable situations or problems that can and should be mitigated.

By all means, not all cases of the cold, of cervical cancer, or of some chronic condition are preventable. As such, not all cases will cause undue harm. The point is that some of these cases can be prevented. To ignore these cases idly because of some borderline pharmacoeconomic calculation is, in my eyes, something that should not happen.

--Garfield3d
 
This whole Healthcare Reform drama is getting out of hand. Its to the point where both parties are getting threats.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hous...nt-threats-health-care-vote/story?id=10193618
and
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/congress.threats/index.html

I agree with Jack Cafferty when he stated that:
At the NCAA tournament, the basketball team that loses shakes hands with the team that wins. It's called sportsmanship.
You see the same thing at NFL games, the World Series and boxing matches.
But where you don't see it much these days is in Washington, DC. We have become so bitterly divided that people on the losing side of a political debate - in the case of health care reform, Republicans and their supporters - have taken to hurling insults, using names like Baby Killer and using the most vile racial epithets to refer to African-American members of the United States Congress, as well as our President.
These recent examples follow the beginning of this descent into schoolyard behavior when during the President's State of the Union address - a Republican congressman yelled out: "You lie!"
That followed talk of death panels and the government killing your grandmother.
This kind of behavior by our leaders sends a subliminal message that this kind of behavior is acceptable, and eventually you get to death threats and perhaps worse.
What exactly are we becoming here? Do members of Congress start punching each other and throwing furniture the way they do in some legislative bodies elsewhere in the world?
 
But the entire point is the issue of State and Federal powers and the jurisdiction of each. Auto insurance laws are under the jurisdiction of the state itself; that's why they vary from state to state. The Federal government hasn't ever put out a mandate about auto insurance because they're not granted that power by the Constitution. Massachusetts requires all of its citizens to have health insurance. The states have that power, the Feds don't. That's the main point of the lawsuits.

You do realize that the federal government has a number of agencies that are not explictly laid out in the constitution and that tell states what to do on a regular basis. Thus far, not a single lawsuit brought to close them has been successful. The biggest one of all is the Department of Education, only because the department of transportation dropped the "if you don't set the speed limit at 55 we'll withhold all federal funding for interstate repair and construction" baloney.

Secondly, it's unlikely that any federal system will issue an injunction stopping this from taking effect, thus its likely to take a year or more to settle. I'd be worried if I were the states about fast tracking it, because it's likely the justices have evaluated the argument and want to squash it before it can fester.
 
OMG!!! It's the end of the world!! we're all gonna die!!! Ahhhh!!! HELP!
 
Top