Yes. I can not see the other side of this argument. Illness and injury strike routinely and unpredictably, regardless of age/gender/race/etc. When they do, we need health care. The alternative is to live like our ancestors, and die before hitting 35. You'll be very hard-pressed to find an American who has not used our healthcare system. The most fortunate ones can go years without employing it for themselves, but they will inevitably need medical care.

I disagree with this assertion in its entirety. It is utter idiocy to voluntarily forego health care even when in one's 20's. Leaving aside the risk of unexpected catastrophe, not utilizing preventative medicine routinely leads to higher costs in the long term, as problems which could have been treated easily and cheaply balloon into long-term and expensive problems.

Leaving this aside, you're ignoring the fact that even people in their 20's and 30's, who are statistically the least likely to utilize immediate medical services for themselves (and I couch that purposefully) are still quite likely, statistically speaking, to beging raising family(ies). These offspring will inevtibably and indisputably require health care. At the moment, most of these children are covered by the parents' insurance, or by the state, each of which is definitely economic activity.

As for folks who are in their 40's and up, I can't understand how these people don't need health care. It's no coincidence that health care costs are mushrooming in lockstep with our aging population. EVERY American needs access to health care. And right now, they all get it, albeit to differing degrees. Which brings us to...

You're grossly misunderstanding how insurance, health and otherwise, works. Insurance is not some sock you put your pennies into, and then empty on the day you get hit by a drunk or discover you have cancer. Insurance is nothing more or less than a communal method of lessening the financial risk of encountering a disastrous event. Without it, only the extremely wealthy could ever afford to stay overnight in the hospital, let alone receive life-saving medical treatment and access to pharmaceutical drugs.

The simple truth of the matter is that almost all of us would have to declare bankruptcy if we ever broke a bone or suffered a stroke. Insurance is meant to combat exactly that risk. If you're lucky, you'll never get back all the money you spent. But it's a gamble to not have it. And, to bring us back to the main point, if you don't have insurance it's a gamble that the taxpayer/hospital/some other third party is forced to pay off in your stead.

As an aside, if you're arguing that insurance companies generally charge too much, you'll find that we agree. But that really is a different topic to the one at hand.

Again, insurance does not work like this. Otherwise, each individual would just keep a separate bank account for medical needs, and keep their fingers crossed that it's enough.

That said, the law is not targetted at those who don't have insurance because they can not afford insurance. My understanding is that this point is addressed directly in the law: those people with insufficient income are not subject to the penalty. The law is instead targetted at all those folks who can afford insurance, but are choosing to gamble that they'll never need it, probably in the hope that they'll buy in just in time to get sick or hurt.

The slippery slope argument. However, money, and the making of it, is extremely regulated. Minimum wage, overtime, securities disclosures, interest, dividends, inheritances...any and all forms of making money are already subject to a treatise's worth of federal regulations. So money can't be a slippery slope argument, because it fell down the slope around the time the Constitution was drafted.

To answer your hypothetical though, this legal sorta-precedent would only give the government that power if it did not run afoul of some other legal or constitutional restriction. I'm pretty confident that such exists. If not, we'll make one. Probably after hanging the idiot who proposed said law in the first place.

She has not.

A) Ok

B&C) 

I never said it was a "communal sock"  I said that most people put in more money then they get out of their health insurance.  It's pretty much the only way health insurance works.  Which completely defeats the "Inevitability" arguement.  Since most people are, like you said, paying money to defary risk, which ends up going to treat other people.   In otherwords, most people are consuming way more then they would normally, while a few are consuming less... because MOST people will put in way more in healthcare insurance premiums, then they would in in healthcare payments for services.  While only a few who suffer serious injuries... and probably more then one serious injury will consume more in healtcare services then they paid in premiums.

This completely defeats your inevitability arguement.

It's like argueing that because everybody is going to need Gasoline at some point or another, we should all pool in $100 a month even though most of us will use far less, and a few far more, because it's inevitable that we'll use gasoline.  (Though the amount we'll use is probably going to be way less.)

D)  Additionally, you still aren't getting it.    Say I'm "John Middle Class"  and I have plenty of money for health insurance but I don't buy it under the new law.  I now get cancer.  I go to the hospital, I don't have health insurance.   They have to treat me.  One of two situations occurs here.

1)  I don't have enough money to pay my hospital bills!  Therefore I go bankrupt, the state has to pay for it and.... I can't pay my fine either and go bankrupt.  How was this fine supposed to deter me again?  I go bankrupt either way. 

2) I do have enough money to pay my hospital bills!   So I do.  Then I have to pay the fine... which was to prevent the above situation.  Which it wouldn't... because, why woud it?  So i'm paying extra money for... having enough money to pay my hospital bills... what?

E) It's not a slippery slope arguement, it's a direct lateral arguement. 

Or to make a long story short....

how can you claim individual inevitability, when most people end up being forced to consume more then they would of consumed otherwise?

It's something your sidestepping, by trying to argue the merits of the system while getting away from your actual legal arguement of inevitability.

If your arguement is one of inevitability, people should only be forced to consume what is = to inevitable.  Otherwise inevitability ceases to exist, because you are now forcing people to consume a product that is NOT inevitable.

Like forcing someone to buy more food then they need to eat.

Additionally, if your argueing that health insurance prices aren't relatable to healthcare prices because of how health insurance works.  That even more defeats your point of inevitability, because you aren't even paying for the same product.

Also, actually thinking about it. Inevitability and healthcare as a right would make it MORE unconstitutional.

The whole argument for why forcing people to buy car insurance is constitutional is that driving is a privilege, not a right.

http://www.autoinsurance.org/why-do-some-people-say-mandatory-auto-insurance-is-unconstitutional/

I mean the law can't force someone to NOT incriminate themselves.  In otherwords forcing people to remain silent.

A) Glad we agree.

B+C) Except that it doesn't defeat my inevitability argument at all. Everyone who's in this country for enough time to fall under this law* is going to utilize health care. Everyone. That was in point A. What you're arguing now when you say "MOST people will put in way more in healthcare insurance premiums, then they would in in healthcare payments for services" boils down to "this is a rotten deal for the average joe, because he's paying in more than he'll get out!"

Ignoring for a moment the policy aspect of that debate, and focusing purely on the legal side, your argument has already conceded the issue. After all, no one disputes that Congress has the power to regulate commercial activity, a legal theory that has been upheld when it comes down to Congress' power to regulate whatever medical care you do receive.

For simplicity's sake, let me break it down. Health care is an economic activity. Everyone is going to utilize health care, as conceded earlier. Congress has the power to regulate economic activity. This essentially ends the issue. Whether Congress' regulations are wise, or fair, or the best solution; all are completely irrelevant. As long as those regulations do not run afoul of a Constitutional prohibition, and the regulation pass the required level of scrutiny (here, rational basis), then the law should be upheld by the courts. Its wisdom should be challenged in the legislature, not the courthouse.

To stick with your (highly imperfect) gas analogy, it wouldn't matter whether you use $10 a month or only 0.01 cent a month of gas, because you agreed earlier that the group has power to decide what to do about the necessary that is gas money.

*I suppose foreign workers who are here for only a few months wouldn't, but you get the idea.

D) The law is designed specifically to ensure that John Middle Class never gets into this mess in the first place. Outcome one is akin to saying "laws designed to deter undesirable activities never work 100%. They are therefore pointless." I reject that sentiment out of hand.

Outcome two is also largely irrelevant. If you're John Middle Class, and you just beat cancer with your own money, you sure as hell don't have the cash left over that it would take to get over your wife's cancer, or that whiplash you suffered last night, or your kid's apendicitis, or whatever else little joys life sends your way. Otherwise, you're not exactly Middle Class. When it comes to life, lightning has no problem striking twice. Besides, few people would be dense enough to dodge a bullet and not keep their head down afterwards. As for those few, I'm sure they'll be happy to know that their fine money went at least a little way towards alleviating the cost of their stupidity to society.

The entire rant I went on earlier about why health insurance works like it does was pretty much on point for this section. You're saying that the penalty is "not for people to pay for their own inevitable costs." Since you've gone into more detail about how specific a reading you're giving the "own" in "own inevitable costs," I suppose it's true for most, in the narrow sense. But that's largely irrelevant, for reasons already stated.

Except that that's not how the commerce clause works. You're arguing policy: people shouldn't be forced to consume more than they absolutely have to! I'm mostly pointing out that once you start consuming health care, which you have and you will, you've fallen under the commerce clause. Congress, not the courthouse, should be where the battle over policy takes place. As an aside, I concede that some of my post was also about the wisdom of the concept of health insurance, and that the "eat what you kill" system you're implicitly advocating defeats the entire purpose of getting insurance in the first place. That aside is tangential to the topic at hand, though.

You later write about car insurance. That's actually a useful illustration for this point: the legislature can require you to purchase a minimum amount of certain kinds of insurance, notwithstanding that, God willing, you'll never use most/any of it. Speaking of...

Regarding auto insurance, no one has ever successfully claimed that a driver's license, or the ability to drive, is a necessity for life. But, once again, the state has successfully mandated that drivers must purchase at least X amount of insurance if they are going to drive, notwithstanding that most consumers will never consume the entire amount that they paid out over their lifetime. This is perfectly legal, because this activity falls under the commerce clause, does not run afoul of any constitutional prohibition, and passes a rational basis level of scrutiny.

As for your final note, I admit I don't quite understand the connection, but to address it directly: the law probably could do just that if it wanted, through the simple process of making any statement you make inadmissible against you in a court of law or equity. And with that, the law forces you to not incriminate yourself. I don't see any constitutional bar there. I also don't see it happening. *shrug*

B+C) Actually, i never conceded that. For extreme cases some guy who's never been to a doctor could walk out in front of a subway train and be instantly killed on the scene. Or jump off a bridge and commit suicide. There is only one inevitability in life... and that is it's end.


What I DID argue was that even if something WAS legal because it was inevitable ONLY the inevitable could be covered. Otherwise you'd be saying that Government for example could mandate us to buy 12 tons of broccoli a month because... everybodys got to eat!  Though nobody is going to eat that much.

Furthermore, I'd note that you are using healthcare as a catch all, for dozens of things. Like Food. Or like how buying or selling anything (Practically inevitable) is all broadly commerce.

Additionally, when you pay for health insurance. Each unit of health insurance covers you for THAT month. Therefore if you don't benefit from services that month. There is no inevitability.

Also, I don't advocate an "Eat what you kill" system. I think everyone SHOULD have health insurance.(Though everyone should decide they want it not forced into it or less preferably but more acceptable, a proper government run healthcare system that would actually be legal. Paid out of the general budget, with no special taxes towards it.)

I'm arguing the law here.



As for the Car insurance thing... you missed the point. Car insurance is legal because driving isn't a right... if Driving WAS a right it would be illegal to force people to pay for car insurance.

If Healthcare is a right. It would be illegal to force people to pay for health insurance. Because it's a right.

You can't charge people for rights, because rights are inherent. If you are fined for something, and you claim freedom of speech, your fine is revoked and waived.

Therefore if someone didn't get insurance you couldn't fine them.

Except that he didn't spring fully-formed as an adult from the ground. And I'd be very interested to meet this adult American who's made it past his minority without once using healthcare. It's an interesting hypothetical, but I sincerely doubt it stretches any further than that.

And what's the legal principle behind this argument? All I see is a policy argument. You're again trying to use the slippery slope argument ("if we let gays marry, how can we stop people from marrying their dogs?!"). Your position is that that "if something WAS legal because it was inevitable ONLY the inevitable could be covered."

Why? Under what constitutional, statutory, or even judicial rule? I can't think of it; if you can find one, I'll be happy to change my tune.

I'm afraid I don't understand this point, or how it relates to the discussion as a whole.

Now THIS is the strongest argument you've made so far. It's also one of the bigger reasons why I'm not completely convinced of the constitutionality of the law, although I still lean towards rather than against. The greatest reason why I can see this point being insufficiently persuasive in court comes back to the fact that medical emergencies are, almost by definition, unpredictable, so engaging in ex post facto analysis strikes me as flawed.

Actually, I don't believe this is true at all. If driving was a right, it would still impact interstate commerce, and therefore fall under the commerce clause. There might be more restrictions on the mandate, most likely that the impoverished can forego insurance at their option, but again, the commerce clause does not contain an exemption that says that economic activities that are otherwise constitutional rights are exempt from the commerce clause. Those intervening rights might restrict the applicability of the commerce clause (again, see the above example), but unless the intervening right is some absolute that states it's impervious to other regulation, I don't see the issue.

Consider, for example, how even the Free Exercise Clause does not constitutionally protect a religious group's business from being subject to most regulations that apply to non-religious businesses, and most (all?) of those narrow exceptions are specifically carved out in the statutes for political rather than constitutional reasons. The Catholic Church isn't going to get its way on the contraceptive issue because of the Free Exercise Clause, it's going to get it because of political pressure.

This is factually untrue. Demonstrators who violate time and place restrictions don't get off scots-free just because they were exercising their free speech rights. These folks have to pay the fine, just like any other violator. Rights are not absolute, and they are far from immune to regulation. I suspect this is at the heart of our disagreement.

We don't really know if a car insurance mandate would fall under the commerce clause, though, because car insurance is mandated at the state level and not the federal level. In the strictest definition of regulation - the one the framers likely meant, IMO - that would be "to make regular". But it isn't regular, since auto insurance requirements vary from state to state.

1) There are plenty of Americans like that.  Immigrants mostly, but there are also children who are given birth too live and don't use medical facilties when young, or if they do, use ones that are totally free.  I know plenty of poeple who's kids have done that.

2) You don't seem to understand waht a slippery slope arguement is.  A Slippery slope arguement is "If A) Happens, then B) which is different and worse will happen".

Gay marriage vs Dog marriage is a slippery slope arguement because Dogs aren't human and have no ability to consent. 

There is no similar reason that forcing people to buy food is worse then forcing people to buy health insurance.   I'm making a lateral arguement.  A better example of my arguement using gay marriage would be.  "If you don't let gay people get married, then why do we let infertile heterosexual couples get married'   because they're both pairs of consenting adults who can not have children.

This is a lateral example.  It shows that why A) is stupid, put into context of a roughly analgous situation with which a person doesn't have a predefined emotion towards.

3) You might not think it's true... but it is.  Note even the car insurance lobby is stating so, there has been many lawsuits on the arguement which largely just ended in "Driving isn't a right, therefore you can regulate it."    Furthermore, these are state laws... specifically because most people won't ever drive out of there state.  Which really is another reason why calling Healthcare interestate commerce is really questionable.

4) No... actually it is factually true.  There have been large numbers of cases thrown out due to free speech or freedom of expression etc.  They have a case like this once or twice a year that catches the news in New York. 

Demonstraters only get arrested if they resist being moved aftewords. Also, time, place and content laws have to be nuetral for all parties and not be biased towards one group.  Which this healthcare law is.  It would be more aplicable to content restrictions.

Where there are plenty of cases of things like people defecating on sidewalks and getting aroudn other laws by argueing "freedom of expression."

Well that combined with prior restraint.  Which is making the arguement that someone act is going to have direct, immediate harm to other people.

Which, clearly this does NOT meet the burden of.  Your arguement has been based on vague, indirect harm.

Which really, is an arguement you can make for all taxes... since all taxes involve people paying more, because other people need to pay less.  The same arguements you make for this law.... essentially would be used by the staunchest of libretarians against all taxes.

Also, I'd note that the food case isn't that outlandish.

Afterall the strongest arguement for the healthcare law is that in the past the government has fined people before for growing too much wheat. Meant only for personal consumption.  Argueing that because he was growing his own food he wouldn't buy food on the market.

Which was just ludicrius, but allowed because of Great Depression hysteria... and FDR thinking it was a good idea to make poor people pay more for food.