What part of the Constitution allows for the Federal government to force people to buy health insurance?

Question

Regarding the Democratic candidates' health care reform plans.

Lisa M: States require you to have car insurance. It has nothing to do with the Federal government.

Edit: It doesn't kookoo. Try to stay on topic.

Answer 1

When the states require that you purchase automobile insurance they are requiring it so that you do not harm others.

They only require that you purchase Personal Liability insurance, which will cover your *** in the event that you injure or kill someone while driving... this is a good thing because there always is the possibility that you could injure someone on the road and would not have the money to cover their injuries... THEY DON'T REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE FULL COVERAGE ON YOUR VEHICLE! They are protecting all the other drivers on the road from you, not protecting you from yourself!

Health insurance, however, is different than automobile insurance... should you fail to have health insurance the only person that would be harmed is yourself!

Having the federal government (OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT) maindate that you do things that are what they believe to be in your best interest is overstepping the bounds of their authority.... if you believe it is within the bounds of the government's authority to force you to purchase health insurance, then you must think that people are too stupid to make decisions on their own... and require the nanny-state to tell you what is in your own self interest.

As soon as you make this leap in judgement, however, then you're giving the federal government a mandate to decide every decision for you... next you will be required to have a gym membership, because it is in your best interest to be physically fit. Then its requriring that all people get massages, because stress reduction is in your best interest. Then it's that you're only allowed to eat certain foods, because its in your best interest to avoid certain foods... OH WAIT, THAT ALREADY HAS HAPPENED...

This is getting out of control! Many people out there simply have no need for health insurance... I know many people in their 20's and 30's who see no need for health insurance... instead of taking health insurance through their work they opt instead to have more money in their paycheck every pay period... thats their own choice... it may be stupid... they might get injured and then wish they had insurance... but that's their own decision. Hell, what do you know, they could be self insuring by saving money for a health related event... or they could be one of those rare people that believe insurance is gambling and therefore have a moral objection against buying insurance! Whatever their reasoning, nobody has the right to force them to buy anything! They are intelligent enough to make decisions for their own life, and it's not up to me or you or Hillary Clinton, to tell these people that they must have health insurance, ITS UP TO EVERY PERSON TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ON ISSUES OF HEALTH INSURANCE!

That being said, the Socialists have a point when they say that many people are going without health insurance... and several things could be done to reduce the numbers of uninsured, whithout forcing people to buy health insurance at the point of a gun!

First off, get insurance back to what it's there for... insuring against unlikely problems that come up, for which you financially cannot handle! If you have full coverage on your automobile, and you get into an accident, the insurance is there to fix or replace your vehicle! That's why you are paying for insurance... because you're not in a position to go out and buy a new car in the event you get into an accident. If you have enough money in the bank to run out and replace your car if you get into an accident, then you have no need for insurance, and shouldn't buy it! YOU DON'T USE YOU'R INSURANCE TO PAY FOR OIL CHANGES, HOWEVER!

Health insurance should be the same way... rather than using it for every time a person gets the sniffles and goes to see their doctor, it should be used only in cases where you can't afford to cover the costs on your own... such as if you have a catastrophic injury or illness! For routine medical care people should have health savings accounts to take care of those costs! This would encourage people to weigh the cost of treatments, and tests, and to shop around for the best value in healthcare... because they will be paying for it themselves.

Nobody spends other's money more wisely than they spend their own. When you have an insurance company paying for your healthcare why would you worry about shopping around for cheaper healthcare? Why would you buy generic drugs rather than brand name? Why would doctors and hospitals compete to offer cheaper alternatives, or price themselves lower than their competition? They wouldn't! Thats part of the reason healthcare costs are spiriling out of control, and making it very expensive for many to get healthcare!

Secondly, we need to drop this maindate that the government has imposed that requires healthcare insurance to be provided through work! If health insurance was offered direct to consumers, there would be much more innovation, and competition among insurance companies to innovate and provide more tailored services. Look at auto insurance... there are hundreds of different companies offering hundreds of different types of insurance... and they are constantly innovating, something you never see in health insurance. Recient developments in auto insurance are companies like GEICO and Progressive, which market their insurance online, and use economies of scale, and lower overhead, to offer much cheaper insurance than traditional insurance companies like Allstate, and AAA! Other innovations are companies like Look Auto insurance which offer insurance to higher risk drivers... what innovations do you see in heath insurance?

These are things that could be done easily, and cheaply... but still many people do not want health insurance... why should Hillary Clinton force it on people who don't want it! So to answer your question, Hillary doesn't have the authority, the right, or the responsibility to force anybody to purchace heath insurance, and no matter what laws she passes through congress, she NEVER will! IT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND EVEN IF THEY WERE ABLE TO PASS AN AMENDMENT TO THE EFFECT TO GRANT THAT AUTHORITY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IT WOULD BE BUNK BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE NATURAL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE TO REFUSE TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE.

Answer 2

I agree with your premise that Article One, Section Eight, Clause One (taxing and spending, general welfare clause) was NEVER meant to be a 'catch-all' clause. If it was meant to grant the Congress unending power, why would they have bothered with the listing of the specific powers given to the federal government (congress) in the rest of the section. In fact, Article One could have just said "The congress has the power to spend on whatever it wants to and the authority to tax the citizens to raise the funds for that spending" and be done with it. Instead, Section Eight lists what Congress is authorized to do, Section Nine lists what Congress is prohibited from doing, and Section Ten list what the states are prohibited from doing. When one reads those sections, and follows it with a reading of Amendment Ten (State's rights), it is patently obvious that Congress is not authorized to require you to purchase health insurance, bicycles, guns, or anything else. It is a shame that we even have to have such a discussion, but we can thank a negligent school system for failing to teach civics, history, economics, and the meaning of the Constitution to all students so they can make 'informed' decisions about governmental policies. Of course, then the citizens might not support federal support for teacher's unions. And the school bureaucracy can't have that, now can they?

Answer 3

There is none allowing the Federal gov't mandating people buy health insurance. On the flip side (using "literalist" interpretation), there is nothing in the Constitution explicitly PROHIBITING the federal gov't from mandating such a plan, either.

These are primarily economic issues that are not directly addressed within the Constitution. Such issues are, thus, subject to majority rule.

Answer 4

The same part of the constitution that allows the federal government to keep a person in prison for an indefinite period of time without charging them with a crime.
The answer to your question is that the constitution doesn't allow for this!

Answer 5

It's not all Democrats plans, just Clinton and Edwards. And what part of the Constitution allows for the government to make it illegal to drive without car insurance? It's not right, but the laws are already in place for other situations.

Answer 6

I imagine that they would use some interpritation of the commerce clause.

Either that or they would tie federal money to the requirement saying to the states that if they don't implement this program they don't get any federal money.

Answer 7

The part that only liberals can see. It's right next to the "separation of church and state" and before the part that says "the right to bear arms only applies to organized militias".

Answer 8

its ridiculous. i cant even imagine how long that would take. would you go to jail if you were uninsured? would you have insurance police tracking down uninsured people? whats next? a law against not eating your vegies?

Answer 9

It is not part of the constitution.