Community | March 10, 2010 | 9 comments

Is the 'mandatory insurance' constitutional?

trogoglin
Tell me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the federal government has the right to force the people to buy health care? This is the essence of the debate over Obamacare.

Opponents say the individual mandate is unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government power to fine citizens for refusing to purchase goods and services. Ken Klukowski, senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, explained in a Politico commentary why there is no constitutional basis for the individual mandate.

"People who decline coverage are not receiving federal money, so that mandate can't fall under the spending part of the Tax and Spending Clause," he wrote.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes excise and capitation taxes, and the 16th Amendment created the income tax. However, Klukowski contends that government health insurance cannot be considered an excise, capitation or income tax.

Both the House and Senate health-care bills require Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.

The House bill establishes a fine based on percentage of a person's income, while the Senate version creates a penalty as a flat fee or percentage of income, whichever is higher. Those refusing to get insurance could be found guilty of a misdemeanor crime, punishable by another fine or even jail time.
  1. groups:
    Community,   The Tin Foil Mafia
  2. tags:
    Healthcare,  NWO,  New World Order,  Nazi,  9 more
  3.     
    |

9 comments // Is the 'mandatory insurance' constitutional? // Video

  • Patanjali
    • +1
      Patanjali  

    • The Constitution gives the federal government the power to "promote the general welfare". Arguably, requiring the purchase of health iunsurance, or taxing us so that the federal government can provide health care is an element of "promoting the general welfare". There is no question but that the requirment, should it become law, is constitutional.

    • 1 year ago
  • hammywill
  • 02
  • Incredulous
    • 0
      Incredulous  

    • there should be no mandate period...with or without a public option. The argument being put forth by the insurance industry to justify a mandate is pure BS, and if we believe this argument, well, then on some level we deserve the BS we are going to get. If the insurance companies offered a product that actually provided what it claimed to provide, and if our head-up-their-ass government was willing to reign in corporate profit and power, then we might be able to produce a workable health care reform, but until the government stops pandering to corporate interests (and we are talking Congress here, not the much maligned Obama administration) we are going to get BS justification for BS mandates.

      Is the mandate Constitutional? Hell No!

      Was it in keeping with the Constitution for the Supreme Court to bequeath corporations with personhood? Hell No!

      The Constitution may allow for continued interpretation of its precepts, but those interpretations are supposed to be subject to the will of the people. Clearly, it was not and is not the will of the people to endow corporations with the rights of citizens, and when your highest court is no longer representative of the people whose rights it was designed to defend and serve, it is time to lose the losers and start over.

      Wolves in sheep's clothing...

    • 1 year ago
  • ChunkyCheezes
  • Incredulous
  • Conniepae
  • dariusvons
    • 0
      dariusvons  

    • manditory gambling. I don't think it's possible. who the hell is going to pay for it? I'm not going to, does that mean I'm a criminal? how about this, I wouldn't need insurance if only I didn't lose so much money to the moochers who use social programs... just a thought.

    • 1 year ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos