If Medicare is Constitutional, why isn't the Individual Mandate?

[soulflower]

Is the Supreme Court going to say that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional next(assuming they rule against Obamacare)?

"It's so crazy to think that a society that has Social Security and Medicare would not find this (law) constitutional," said MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who advised both the Obama administration and Massachusetts lawmakers as they developed the state mandate in the 2006 law that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney championed as governor.

"The payroll tax is worse than the mandate, because that is a program where we take your money and there is no ability to get out of it," Gruber said. Citizens can avoid the health insurance mandate by paying a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.

Other federal health care mandates include:

— The 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. It requires nearly all hospitals to treat and stabilize anyone needing emergency care, regardless of ability to pay or legal U.S. residency. Critics call it an unfunded mandate. It was part of a budget law signed by President Ronald Reagan.



http://entertainment.verizon.com/new...ps=1018&page=3

[soulflower]

One word: politics

[karlydee]

Is the Supreme Court going to say that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional next(assuming they rule against Obamacare)?

Nope.

SCOTUS already conceded during orals for Affordable Care Act (ACA), that the federal govt. could kill Medicaid and just provide Medicare for all,

as a way to avoid a potential coersion of the States caused by the ACA expansion of Medicaid

[soulflower]

Nope.

SCOTUS already conceded during orals for Affordable Care Act (ACA), that the federal govt. could kill Medicaid and just provide Medicare for all,

as a way to avoid a potential coersion of the States caused by the ACA expansion of Medicaid

Helping states deal with a problem that local and state governments can't handle is coersion? Amazing isn't it?

[soulflower]

Lindsey Donner, a small-business owner from San Diego, pays the Medicare tax although she and her husband are uninsured. Donner, 27, says she doesn't see much difference between the mandate that workers help finance Medicare and the health care law's requirement that nearly everyone has to have some sort of health insurance.

"My understanding of what is going on in the Supreme Court is that it seems to be something of a semantics issue," she said. "Ultimately, I don't see the big difference. If I am paying for Medicare, why can't I also be paying into something that would help me right now or in five years if I want to have children?"

[cprenegade]

Is the Supreme Court going to say that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional next(assuming they rule against Obamacare)?

None of the examples are the same as the mandate. None of them are the same as the federal government forcing citizens to purchase a product on the market or face a fine. The commerce part of it is what is going to get it struck down. If the congress had taken the time to look at this more carefully, they would have realized that this was very questionable. If you allow the government to tell you that you must purchase a product, it opens up a pandora's box of what they can tell you to purchase. Had they expanded medicare to all, or gone with a public option that required people to pay into, it might not be struck down. But then they didn't have the support for that. This bill was rushed through instead of thought through and now it is likely it will pay the price for that.

[soulflower]

None of the examples are the same as the mandate. None of them are the same as the federal government forcing citizens to purchase a product on the market or face a fine. The commerce part of it is what is going to get it struck down. If the congress had taken the time to look at this more carefully, they would have realized that this was very questionable. If you allow the government to tell you that you must purchase a product, it opens up a pandora's box of what they can tell you to purchase. Had they expanded medicare to all, or gone with a public option that required people to pay into, it might not be struck down. But then they didn't have the support for that. This bill was rushed through instead of thought through and now it is likely it will pay the price for that.

So its ok to force uninsured people to pay for Medicare but its not ok to "ask" uninsured people to get insurance and offer subsidies to help them pay for it?

You can opt out of the Individual Mandate. You can't opt out of Medicare or Social security.

The Individual Mandate is a republican idea while Medicare and Social Security are democrat ideas. The only reason theyre against it is politics plain and simple.

[SomeIdiot]

So its ok to force uninsured people to pay for Medicare but its not ok to "ask" uninsured people to get insurance and offer subsidies to help them pay for it?

You can opt out of the Individual Mandate. You can't opt out of Medicare or Social security.

The Individual Mandate is a republican idea while Medicare and Social Security are democrat ideas. The only reason theyre against it is politics plain and simple.

That is without a doubt true but it still doesn't speak to the constitutional question.

[cprenegade]

So its ok to force uninsured people to pay for Medicare but its not ok to "ask" uninsured people to get insurance and offer subsidies to help them pay for it?

You can opt out of the Individual Mandate. You can't opt out of Medicare or Social security.

The Individual Mandate is a republican idea while Medicare and Social Security are democrat ideas. The only reason theyre against it is politics plain and simple.

You are missing the point. The point is whether or not government has the power to force someone to purchase a product that is sold by an individual corporate entity. If so, it sets a very bad precedent. Where does it end? Once the precedent is set, can they mandate that everyone buy a solar panel to ease energy concerns? Mandate that everyone own a battery operated car? These may be extreme examples, but once you establish that the precedent is indeed constitutional, they are possible. And everyone knows that once government can do something, they will.

Interestingly enough, all the democrats are bringing up that the mandate was originally a republican idea that they now oppose. Nobody seems to be bringing up that it was a republican idea that the democratic administration of the 90's rejected. It works both ways. If the mandate is so good, why didn't the Clinton administration accept it back in the 90's? If they had, it very well may have met the same fate as it seems destined to do now.

Actually the ironic thing about the individual mandate is that it does raise novel constitutional questions that a single payer system like Medicare wouldn't. It's pretty clear that the government can tax and spend with few restrictions. It isn't so clear that it can force people to contract with private companies.

You get it. That is exactly the case!

[Diego]

Think how much easier it would have been to "save GM" if they could have just mandated that everyone buy a GM car, or pay a fine to be given to GM, in the interest of "commerce"

[SomeIdiot]

Actually the ironic thing about the individual mandate is that it does raise novel constitutional questions that a single payer system like Medicare wouldn't. It's pretty clear that the government can tax and spend with few restrictions. It isn't so clear that it can force people to contract with private companies.

[soulflower]

Actually the ironic thing about the individual mandate is that it does raise novel constitutional questions that a single payer system like Medicare wouldn't. It's pretty clear that the government can tax and spend with few restrictions. It isn't so clear that it can force people to contract with private companies.

It's a matter of politocs and semantics.

Is it better to have the government be the provider of a service or is it better to give citizens the freedom to choose where to buy the service plus give them the option to not buy the service?

From an individual freedom standpoint, it seems that freedom of choice would be preferable to the type of mandate that exists for Medicare...

[soulflower]

It's not "force" if you can opt out.

You can't opt out of Medicare or Social Security

[cprenegade]

It's not "force" if you can opt out.

You can't opt out of Medicare or Social Security

It's not force if it is voluntary and you can decline. It is at the very least coercion if the only way you can "opt out" is to pay a fine and be left with nothing to show for that fine.

[Mom49of4]

It's not force if it is voluntary and you can decline. It is at the very least coercion if the only way you can "opt out" is to pay a fine and be left with nothing to show for that fine.

That is the problem. Taxpayers are paying enough.

[soulflower]

It's not force if it is voluntary and you can decline. It is at the very least coercion if the only way you can "opt out" is to pay a fine and be left with nothing to show for that fine.

A very small fine that you can only pay if you pay income taxes. If you have no income, you can't be taxed for opting out..

The only real difference is how the programs are paid for.

Medicare is paid for by payroll taxes. Obamacare is partially paid for by income taxes.

But the opt out thing is key. You can't opt out of paying for Medicare even if you wanted to. There's nothing voluntary about Social Security and Medicare.

Bear in mind, I'm for single payer systems. I just don't see how they are more Constitutional than the mandate in Obamacare

[Diego]

There's nothing voluntary about Social Security and Medicare.

I don't pay into Social Security

[cprenegade]

A very small fine that you can only pay if you pay income taxes. If you have no income, you can't be taxed for opting out..

The only real difference is how the programs are paid for.

Medicare is paid for by payroll taxes. Obamacare is partially paid for by income taxes.

But the opt out thing is key. You can't opt out of paying for Medicare even if you wanted to. There's nothing voluntary about Social Security and Medicare.

Bear in mind, I'm for single payer systems. I just don't see how they are more Constitutional than the mandate in Obamacare

No, it is not. Again, the issue is not how something is paid for or how much is paid, it is whether the federal government should have the power to mandate that someone must purchase a product from the private market. If the issue was only money, and the government levied another tax on everyone to pay into a government program, there probably is no precedent to find it unconstitutional. I don't agree with designating something else along the lines of SS or medicare, but I doubt they would rule it unconstitutional. The issue is totally on whether it is a good precedent to allow the federal government power to mandate that every citizen buy something from the private sector that they may not want to buy. I would love to see the SCOTUS say everyone could opt out of SS or medicare, but they have been challenged before and it isn't going to change now. I have no desire to see the government win this and thus have a precedent to expand it to anything they feel is in the public's "best interest" down the line.

[soulflower]

No, it is not. Again, the issue is not how something is paid for or how much is paid, it is whether the federal government should have the power to mandate that someone must purchase a product from the private market. If the issue was only money, and the government levied another tax on everyone to pay into a government program, there probably is no precedent to find it unconstitutional. I don't agree with designating something else along the lines of SS or medicare, but I doubt they would rule it unconstitutional. The issue is totally on whether it is a good precedent to allow the federal government power to mandate that every citizen buy something from the private sector that they may not want to buy. I would love to see the SCOTUS say everyone could opt out of SS or medicare, but they have been challenged before and it isn't going to change now. I have no desire to see the government win this and thus have a precedent to expand it to anything they feel is in the public's "best interest" down the line.

It's no difference other than the government giving people money to buy a service instead of the government being the provider of the service(ie Medicare). I fail to see how one is more Constitutional than the other...

BTW
The Paul Ryan plan for Medicare reform is basically Obamacare for seniors...

[Mom49of4]

Bottom line taxpayers are paying for these government programs.