In his eloquent style, Obama has suggested putting you in jail.
For what crime is it that you need to be fined and imprisoned? The dastardly deed of not purchasing health insurance when you "have the ability." In a recent interview with ABC, Obama again repeated his affinity for punishing those who choose not to purchase health insurance by stating:
What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty. [-14:23 in the clip]
When pressed on the question of jailing those who refuse to pay the fine, Obama continued:
...I'm not sure thats the biggest question that their asking right now... I think I put out the priciple... that penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.
Obama has consistently used the fallacious argument of comparing the health insurance mandate to a car insurance mandate. However, there are distinct differences between the two mandate:
First, the mandate for car insurance is a state government mandate, not a federal one as the health insurance mandate is. Though states have powers inherent to them under both the US and through their own constitutions, there is nothing the US Constitution -- including the commerce clause -- which allows for the federal government to force people to purchase a certain item. If the government could mandate this, then why not mandate purchasing a computer, map, or dog? They simply don't have the constitutional authority to do it. Many have cited the general welfare clause as giving them the authority, but how can fining and possibly jailing those who choose not to buy something promote the "General Welfare"? Of course, others might disagree that the government, whether federal or state, has any right to impose personal mandates to purchase anything, but that is another argument altogether.
Second, if you choose not to own a car then you can avoid the mandate to have insurance for it. There is no way for you to avoid this mandate. Ask the people in New York City, where according the 2000 census data 54% do not own or lease a vehicle, if they would like to pay for the 46% who do. Moreover, this mandate puts the burden of proof on the citizen to show that he has insurance, making him guilty until proven innocent.
Finally, the reason for the state mandates are not for the protection of the owner of the vehicle. It is instead for damages that operator might incur on other individuals should an accident happen. This is why the standard state mandate only requires liability insurance. If the states wanted to protect the drivers' interest, they would mandate collision coverage, which can go for repairs or bodily injury coverage for passengers. The only thing a state can do is make sure that when you harm the life, liberty, or property of others with your automobile, there is some pot of money that they can be sure will exist as a remedy for the victim. Otherwise, the driver will be personally responsible to pay for damages, which they may not be able to afford. This mandate is for the victims' benefit, not the benefit of the one who causes the accident.
Apparently these simple ideas are lost on the "constitutional scholar" President Obama. The reasons above are not the only differences between the two mandates, but to compare them is to compare apples to snowflakes.
In case you forgot, Obama pledged that people making $250,000 or less will not see their taxes go up "one dime." However this fine is a de facto tax, which is why you can be jailed for failure to pay.
Obama promised "change," but apparently that change was continuous abuse of the Constitution and ignoring it when it inconveniences his grand schemes. So remember this when you're sitting at home trying to figure out how to pay back your student loans, which has become a problem since work is scarce: You better have health insurance, or the DC mafia will be coming to collect their protection money. If you can't afford that either, then it's the big house for you.
I would like to comment on the following passage from your article:
"Though states have powers inherent to them under both the US and through their own constitutions, there is nothing the US Constitution -- including the commerce clause -- which allows for the federal government to force people to purchase a certain item. If the government could mandate this, then why not mandate purchasing a computer, map, or dog? They simply don't have the constitutional authority to do it."
I agree with your first statement--there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to force people to purchase a particular item. However, I would like to point out that the government has manipulated the commerce clause throughout history to stretch its meaning to anything the government would like to regulate.
Just think about it... Essentially, the government has bestowed the power upon itself to regulate anything having to do with interstate commerce, which is almost everything. So, as of right now, they really do have the power (although it is unconstitutional) to mandate the purchase of anything (since everything can be tied to interstate commerce).
I love YAL. Brilliant argument.
I am no constitutional lawyer, so correct me if I am wrong, please! If one tries to argue that health care "promotes general welfare" and that the constitution mandates that we do this, you fail to look at the next part of the preamble: "...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...". That comes RIGHT AFTER "Promote the General Welfare".
by "forcing" us to buy insurance, they deny us liberty.
by endebting our country they will deny liberty to "our posterity".
In order to use one arguement from the preamble to defend health care reform, you have to violate the next statement! Where are the defenders of the constitution? Where are the lawyers and judges speaking out against this violation!?
*blood gushes forth from eye sockets*
You are correct, the commerce clause is extremely overstreched, just read Wickard v. Filburn. However the court stated in US v Lopez, there is a limit, and that is according to the Supreme Court, states reserve the right to control commerce that they have "traditionally regulated." Which is why in that case they threw out a federal "No Guns in Schools" legislation.
However in Gonzalez v Raich, the court again reaffirmed the expanded commerce clause (in my opinion they ruled this way because they don't like marijuana, not because they disagreed with US v Lopez). So the question is up in the air. However simply because they claim something is constitutional doesn't mean it is. The Supreme Court is not bound by precedent, they can change their ruling on a whim. Though I doubt anything major will happen in the next few years as the make up of the court is set to stay about the same.
As for Healthcare, many of the states already regualte health insurance. Insurance companies are even bound within locked regions and run under tight controls put on by the states they are a tied to. Massachusetts is the prime example with their own mandate, but states are the typical controllers of medical insurance regulations. So with that in mind its obvious to see that there is a claim to be made against the constitutionality of the proposed legislation. In my opinion it does fall within the ideas of "traditionally regulated" as the determining factor of state by state regulation. Perhaps oneday if this reaches the courts, we could prevent this plan from being implemented. But as with everything, getting a case in the courts can sometimes backfire. The future will tell.
I just wanted to comment that many states do not mandate car insurance. My car is uninsured in Wisconsin.
Mandated car insurance, coming to a state near you!
Q. Is auto insurance mandatory in Wisconsin?
After June 1, 2010, Wisconsin drivers will be required to have an automobile insurance policy in force or, in limited situations, other security which could be a surety bond, personal funds, or certificate of self-insurance. Details are available at the Department of Transportation, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Hill Farms State Office Building, 4802 Sheboygan Ave., Madison, WI 53702.
<http://oci.wi.gov/faq/auto.htm>
I sell car insurance in Wisconsin and have spent the last 10 months getting the facts straight about what is going to happen June 1, 2010. For those who have insurance there is a certain minimum that almost doubles what the current minimum is and will cost double. For those people who do not own a car, not have a registered or titled car in wisconsin you will not be punished for not having insurance even if caught driving someone's vehicle who does not have insurance. For the people who choose not to carry insurance and still drive an owned and titled vehicle, you will not get a ticket or go to jail for not having insurance. For example, the officer who pulls you over ( like in NY) has to be able at the spot confirm and prove that you have a lapsed insurance policy, not having the insurance card doesn't mean you don't have insurance. Quite simply in Wisconsin the police have a more difficult time trying to figure out if someone is a transient or not. What this new law is designed to do is allow for stackable limits, reject medical pay if you wish by signature, one policy number allowed for multiple vehicles, and ability to reject overinsurance on uninsured and underinsured with the affect of having an umbrella policy. The old minimum limits for auto liability was 25,000/50,000 for each person/each accident now the new minimums are 50,000/100,000. The same limits were set for UM/UIM and are now 100,000/300,000 ea person/ea accident. You can choose to have BI limits at the minimum and not match the new UM/UIM minimum. For example, 50/100 for BI and 100/300 for UM/UIM and reject Med Pay. You can find me on facebook to ask more questions. meitrem@yahoo.com
June 1, 2010 in Wisconsin. The world is not coming to an end. If you have insurance you have to have certain limits. If you do not have insurance, you will not be jailed, it is not mandatory!!
Post new comment