- Joined
- Mar 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,054
- Reaction score
- 7
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.