Forcing Americans to Buy Health Insurance?

TuTu Monroe

A Realist
Sen. Ben Nelson: ‘I’m Not Going to Be Able to Answer That Question’ of Where Constitution Authorizes Congress to Force Americans to Buy Health Insurance
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
By Edwin Mora
(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told CNSNews.com that because he is not a constitutional scholar he was “not going to be able to answer that question” of where specifically the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance.

“Specifically, where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked Nelson.

“Well, you know, I don’t know that I’m a constitutional scholar,” said Nelson. So, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question.”

The senator then turned away to answer another reporter’s question.

Both House and Senate versions of the health care bill would require that Americans buy health insurance.

In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan proposed by then-President Clinton that included a mandate that all individuals purchase health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office studied the issue and discovered that the federal government had never in the history of the United States mandated that individuals purchase any good or service.

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” said the CBO. “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

In an analysis published this July, the CBO said that an attempt to justify a mandate that people buy health insurance by using the Commerce Clause—which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce “among the several states”—raises a “novel issue.”

“Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service,” said the CBO.

In a recent interview with CNSNews.com, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that it was “not constitutionally sound” for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance.

“But here would be the first time where our [federal] government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want,” said Hatch. “And, you know, if that’s the case, then we didn’t need a 'Cash for Clunkers,' all we had to do is have the federal government say you all got to buy new cars, no matter how tough it is on you. You know, they could require you to buy anything. And that isn’t America. That’s not freedom. That’s not constitutionally sound.”

Hatch said that if we let the federal government begin forcing us to buy things we may not want to buy without having a clear constitutional justification for doing so “we’ve lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us.”

Click here
 
The only way the public option is going to work without costing billions is if they have a large number of healthy, younger people in it.

If all they have is older people and people with health problems, its going to be a money pit forever.
 
Two fucking comments on this? that's it? What a sad day. Young people have just had their futures stolen by the boomers yet again.
 
The only way the public option is going to work without costing billions is if they have a large number of healthy, younger people in it.

If all they have is older people and people with health problems, its going to be a money pit forever.
It is an interesting question. Is this constitutional?

But you're right, the only way health care reform is going to work is if it is properly financed and requiring health care coverage for all is about the only way to do that. Most other modern nations all ready require this of their citizens.
 
the good news for us younger folks (me being 35) is that since we have been raped repeatedly by the boomers over our lives with jobs, pensions, ssi, medicare, and so on.. and have little to show for even if we work our asses off.. is that there is another boom now that going to have to take care of us in 30years.
 
I know i'm not buying it just for pure principle. it's totally and completely unconstitutional. maybe i'll have to countersue for a billion dollars.
 
the good news for us younger folks (me being 35) is that since we have been raped repeatedly by the boomers over our lives with jobs, pensions, ssi, medicare, and so on.. and have little to show for even if we work our asses off.. is that there is another boom now that going to have to take care of us in 30years.

Except the Echo boomers will be the next big voting block the idiots in DC protect. We will end up getting screwed again.

The time for a third party is coming... People are getting fed up with the two we have.
 
Maybe or maybe someone in your family will have a major illness and this will save you from bankruptcy. Just maybe.

This is why high deductible plans with HSA accounts WORK.

The individual pays for the deductible each year for routine visits etc... but if there is a major medical need, they are covered 100%. This helps them avoid bankruptcy due to medical issues AND it helps prevent people from over using the basic care.

I understand we have to make sure that the insurance companies do not deny people what they are covered for. THAT we do need to address.
 
This is why high deductible plans with HSA accounts WORK.

The individual pays for the deductible each year for routine visits etc... but if there is a major medical need, they are covered 100%. This helps them avoid bankruptcy due to medical issues AND it helps prevent people from over using the basic care.

I understand we have to make sure that the insurance companies do not deny people what they are covered for. THAT we do need to address.


It has been explained to you many, many times why HSAs do not work for everyone yet you seem to think they are these magical plans that will save everyone from everything. They aren't.

They are absolutely wonderful for some people and absolutely horrible for others. You are in the former category. Many, many others are in the latter.
 
It has been explained to you many, many times why HSAs do not work for everyone yet you seem to think they are these magical plans that will save everyone from everything. They aren't.

They are absolutely wonderful for some people and absolutely horrible for others. You are in the former category. Many, many others are in the latter.

It has been explained to you many many many many times that I do NOT think HSA's will work for everyone.

It is truly amazing how idiotic hacks like yourself and Cypress always like to take a persons position on a PORTION of a solution and create a strawman pretending it is the persons WHOLE solution. I have listed out time and again a laundry list of improvements that need to be done.

Eliminating the HSA plans with high deductibles is a moronic idea. Forcing people to have a set 'government defined' minimum benefits is MORONIC.

Now explain to us... for people like Mott brought up... those who end up in bankruptcy due to Health emergencies... explain how THOSE people would not benefit from a high deductible plan. Health insurance was not designed to take care of every medical need. It was designed to take care of the large expenses that could potentially bankrupt a person/family.

When you compare plans.... look at a person/family's maximum out of pocket expense for a year. I think you will find the high deductible plans are more of a benefit than you have been brainwashed to believe.
 
Last edited:
This is why high deductible plans with HSA accounts WORK.

The individual pays for the deductible each year for routine visits etc... but if there is a major medical need, they are covered 100%. This helps them avoid bankruptcy due to medical issues AND it helps prevent people from over using the basic care.

I understand we have to make sure that the insurance companies do not deny people what they are covered for. THAT we do need to address.
I concur, but what about people who are underinsured or have no insurance or simply are to poor to afford insurance?
 
Don't cut your nose off to spite your face. You going to stop paying property taxes cause you don't want them to teach evolution in a science class too? LOL

No, because my property tax goes to a lot of things. If they want to staytwithin their constitutional guides in regards to taxes and fee then I won't have to do anything that is stupid. But if they want to mandate I have something that is unconstitutional, you can bet your ass I'll fight it. It's not about me, it's about the bigger picture here.
 
I concur, but what about people who are underinsured or have no insurance or simply are to poor to afford insurance?

If they have no insurance by choice (which are typically the younger, healthier individuals) then they should be shown the HSA accounts and how they work. Most companies STILL do not offer the HSA as an option for their employees and most younger people don't know enough about them to get them on their own. I am 38 and healthy and pay about $134 per month for a plan with a $5k deductible. For someone in their 20's it would be even less.

For those that are under insured or have none due to affordability... THOSE are the ones we need to help. We don't need to rework the entire system. 85% of the population is happy with what they have. We should be working on the other 15%.

The affordability can be worked on from two fronts. Help subsidize the deductibles for high deductible plans while we work to address the problem of ever rising costs. Without addressing the costs... it matters not what plan the idiots in DC try to force down our throats. It wont work.
 
I have done HSA in the past and hated the paperwork.. But this year they changed it so that all the deductibles and copay's automatically are deposited to my attached bank account.. and they give me 250bucks for free. Its time for them to fix the tax code to make it fair. no reason that if you are lucky enough to have a health saver account thats pretax at work you should benefit but if you aren't you have to itemize and probably not meet the goal for the long form to get the deduction.
 
The only way the public option is going to work without costing billions is if they have a large number of healthy, younger people in it.

If all they have is older people and people with health problems, its going to be a money pit forever.

Lame! It's going to cost billions forever and ever and ever...even trillions for ever and ever and ever...no matter who the fuck is in it! It's just a matter of which individuals pay what. It translates to unconstitutional rape of the many by the few.
 
Last edited:
I have done HSA in the past and hated the paperwork.. But this year they changed it so that all the deductibles and copay's automatically are deposited to my attached bank account.. and they give me 250bucks for free. Its time for them to fix the tax code to make it fair. no reason that if you are lucky enough to have a health saver account thats pretax at work you should benefit but if you aren't you have to itemize and probably not meet the goal for the long form to get the deduction.

Mine has always been automatic, so never had to deal with any paperwork. My investments in the HSA account are all on line and I can draw on it with a debit card. It is so friggin nice.

That said, I agree... they should allow everyone to contribute up to the amount of their deductible each year into an HSA account. That money should all come out tax free when used for medical purposes as it is now.

That said... I freely admit making the deduction 'fair' isn't a primary concern of mine. There are plenty of things that go against single people... if you want to make all those fair too... then I am with you on this one :)
 
Back
Top