Massachusetts will require mandatory health insurance.

[MrFun]

I'm still ambivalent about this -- will form a more definite opinion later.

Mandatory health insurance.

[Az]

it's an interesting way. Mas. seems to tackle this head-on in one of the few ways one can on the state level...

[MrFun]

I wonder if an Apolytoner from Massachusetts can provide more information -- such as ETF?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Wonder how it will pass Constitutional scrutiny. It's one thing to say physicians and hospitals wouldn't be obligated by statute to treat someone who couldn't or wouldn't pay, but the analogy to automobile insurance is ludicrous.

There is no right to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway, so the state can regulate drivers. There is a right to reside in a particular state. Where the hell does the state derive the right to compel a citizen of that state to purchase anything?

[Zkribbler]

If I were writing the AG's defending brief, I would argue: (1) that there is nothing in the Constitution that says the state cannot require its citizens to buy health insurance and (2) that, if this required insurance were not allowed, then the state would simply tax the citizens and then use the state's spending powers to purchase health insurace for them.

Required insurance actually gives the citizens more freedom that state-provided insurance.

[Apocalypse]

As an early 20s male this is

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
If I were writing the AG's defending brief, I would argue: (1) that there is nothing in the Constitution that says the state cannot require its citizens to buy health insurance and (2) that, if this required insurance were not allowed, then the state would simply tax the citizens and then use the state's spending powers to purchase health insurace for them.

Required insurance actually gives the citizens more freedom that state-provided insurance.

The problem with (1) is that it's a question of the Constitution granting such powers to the state, not of prohibiting them.

It's also clearly a "taking" of property without due process.

(2) is, in essence, nothing more than "if you don't let us simply violate the rights of the citizens of this state, we'll actually have to do something in accordance with law instead."

Have at it - tax the citizens in the manner authorized by law and the federal and state constitutions, and spend the money in the same manner.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The problem with (1) is that it's a question of the Constitution granting such powers to the state, not of prohibiting them.

It's also clearly a "taking" of property without due process.

Not buying either argument.

States have wide discretion when it comes to the health and safety of their citizens. It's no more constitutionally offensive to say "thou shall purchase health insurance" than it is to say "thou shalt not spit on the sidewalk."

It's not a "taking" because the citizen is getting something of value. Moreover, since the citizen gets to choose in a open marketplace, it's almost assured the citizen will get proper value.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Not buying either argument.

States have wide discretion when it comes to the health and safety of their citizens. It's no more constitutionally offensive to say "thou shall purchase health insurance" than it is to say "thou shalt not spit on the sidewalk."

Spitting on the sidewalk is a positive act on public property. That is a world of difference from requiring that any citizen of the state purchase anything merely as a condition of one's citizenship within the state.

It's not a "taking" because the citizen is getting something of value. Moreover, since the citizen gets to choose in a open marketplace, it's almost assured the citizen will get proper value.

Tell that to someone perpetually unemployed with a chronic pre-existing condition such as schizophrenia, Hep C or AIDS, or to a retiree who can't afford the basic necessities of life in the first place.

You get "something of value" when you buy Girl Scout cookies, too. So the state has the right to legislate you buy Girl Scout cookies?

If you have a choice between paying rent or paying for health insurance, and the state mandates you pay for health insurance and you get evicted, then you sure as hell haven't received "something of value."

A taking merely requires that the party loses property (in this case, money) as a proximate result of state action. The question of whether "something of value" is received, or is adequate to justify the taking, is a question of fact to be determined through due process of law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You have to make the argument that it expressly violates the US Constitution. Perhaps violates the right to relocate to the state or something.

However, Massachusetts, of course, has the right to pass a law like this. States aren't limited as the federal government is. States, as soveriegns have the ability to pass anything they want as long as it does not conflict with the state or federal constitution... which is far different than the federal government, which can't pass laws unless authorized by the federal constitution.

At first glance, I'd say it's Constitutional, especially since there are essentially free options.

As for it being a 'taking' of property without due process.. that argument will fly as much as arguments that mandatory car insurance is a taking without due process will (ie, they won't).

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
As for it being a 'taking' of property without due process.. that argument will fly as much as arguments that mandatory car insurance is a taking without due process will (ie, they won't).

Whoops this last statment ignores MtG's argument that, while driving is a privilege (thus permitting the govt to impose conditions), merely living in the State is not.

Originally posted by MtG
Spitting on the sidewalk is a positive act on public property. That is a world of difference from requiring that any citizen of the state purchase anything merely as a condition of one's citizenship within the state.

Not a WORLD of difference. As I pointed out about, the State could, if it wished, tax the money and then spend it on healthcare. Requiring a citizen to spend money on what the State would otherwise purchase is not constitutionally objectionable.

Especially, as Imran so wisely points out a state, unlike the federal government, does not need express power to do anything...it just needs to avoid violating some constitutional prohibition.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Whoops this last statment ignores MtG's argument that, while driving is a privilege (thus permitting the govt to impose conditions), merely living in the State is not.

But he is arguing that this is a taking of property. Whether it is taking property due to a 'right' or 'priviledge' is irrelevent. Property is being taken.

The question of whether it violates the right to move is entirely different than due process concerns.

[Dr Strangelove]

I forsee a problem with determining who gets the income assisted plans and who doesn't. They're using the Federal Poverty Level as the criterion, but what about a young person with a just above poverty income who has education debts? What about somone living in a high rent area like Boston? What about a student with no family support? What about people who are divorced and trying to get back on their feet? Someone just over the poverty line could be knocked back under it by this law.

In the article there was mention of $295/year from employers who don't offer insurance being used to support insurance for low income people. Romney said he'd use a line item veto, but it's not clear whether he would veto the employer tax or the use of the money to support low income people's insurance.

[Zkribbler]

I really have to learn not to argue with you.
You're right.
Again.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Tell that to someone perpetually unemployed with a chronic pre-existing condition such as schizophrenia, Hep C or AIDS, or to a retiree who can't afford the basic necessities of life in the first place.

Which is why I cannot immediately, wholeheartedly agree with this new law -- it might screw over the poor and the working class if individuals do not qualify the supposed waiver.