Massachusetts will require mandatory health insurance.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


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 difference is that you don't have to drive. In fact, if you live someplace like Boston, it's easy not to. The state doesn't mandate that all citizens of the state purchase automobile insurance, it merely mandates that those persons who choose to own vehicles used on public roadways, or those persons who choose to drive on public roadways, purchase insurance as a condition to doing so. If you're a kid on a farm who drives a tractor solely on private property, or someone living on the North End who walks, cabs it, or takes the "T" there's absolutely no legal requirement that you purchase automobile insurance.

Automobile insurance under those conditions is not a taking. If all adult citizens were required to purchase automobile insurance regardless of license, ownership or operation of a motor vehicle, then that would be a taking.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
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.

By that rationale, if the government is going to spend an aggregate amount equal to $10,000 per capita on whatever it buys, then it could simply tax each citizen $10,000, whether they had it or not.

Taxation has pre-established rules and bases (whether on income, property, etc.) for determining how much tax each citizen is charged for the "common good," whatever that may be.

Requiring that each citizen spend a certain amount, regardless of means, for a putative private benefit, and criminalizing failure to do so, is an entirely different story.

[Jon Miller]

well, having every citizen pay a certain ammount is regressive taxation

I would rather things handle progressively (where the rich payer a higher percentage of their income)

a non progressive, non regressive system is one where the tax is just a percentage of income

JM

[The Emperor Fabulous]

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

Emperor Teh Fabulous...I like it

As far as what I can put in, is that this bill is a compromise between those on the left and the right. The left gets the health coverage for the poor, the right gets the mandatory tax penalty for those who don't get it.

Basically: Left - Break for the poor; Right - Individual responsibility

Romney will sign it, especially given the overwhelming approval.

I don't know too much more, but I haven't been on the T yet so I haven't read a Globe or Phoenix yet.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

This is good...but I'm pissed at the Commonwealth right now for not allowing slot machines in race tracks. This means my dad loses his job. You win some, you lose some.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Also, the compromise and swift bill action is necessary. The Federal Government has pledged $385 Million for Mass health care, which they will recind if there is no program by July 1st.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat



The difference is that you don't have to drive. In fact, if you live someplace like Boston, it's easy not to. The state doesn't mandate that all citizens of the state purchase automobile insurance, it merely mandates that those persons who choose to own vehicles used on public roadways, or those persons who choose to drive on public roadways, purchase insurance as a condition to doing so. If you're a kid on a farm who drives a tractor solely on private property, or someone living on the North End who walks, cabs it, or takes the "T" there's absolutely no legal requirement that you purchase automobile insurance.

I'm still agnostic on the larger issue, but I would point out that states routinely require children to attend school, and require them to undergo a medical exam and series of innoculations (at their own expense) before they do so. Would you argue that that's unconstitutional?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


I'm still agnostic on the larger issue, but I would point out that states routinely require children to attend school, and require them to undergo a medical exam and series of innoculations (at their own expense) before they do so. Would you argue that that's unconstitutional?

Kids can be homeschooled, or can go to private secular or religious schools. Parents can also can refuse to have the innoculations (in fact, some objections to that are on religious grounds). The difference is that if the kids attend the public schools, they have to have the vaccines to prevent a public health risk.

Also, every state I've been in has programs available wherein you can get public health mandated vaccinations for free, or at means-tested subsidized costs.

Despite the commonly recognized "public welfare" interest of education and public health interest, there are real questions as to how far the state can go, and the limits of its enforcement authority.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The difference is that you don't have to drive. In fact, if you live someplace like Boston, it's easy not to. The state doesn't mandate that all citizens of the state purchase automobile insurance, it merely mandates that those persons who choose to own vehicles used on public roadways, or those persons who choose to drive on public roadways, purchase insurance as a condition to doing so. If you're a kid on a farm who drives a tractor solely on private property, or someone living on the North End who walks, cabs it, or takes the "T" there's absolutely no legal requirement that you purchase automobile insurance.

Automobile insurance under those conditions is not a taking. If all adult citizens were required to purchase automobile insurance regardless of license, ownership or operation of a motor vehicle, then that would be a taking.

I don't think that argument would get you anywhere in court. Simply because you are allowed to choose to get a car (and we know most people are forced to do so because work, going to the grocery store, etc) doesn't make it any less of a governmental 'taking'. Your property (ie, your money) is being taken by the government if you decide to get a car. Most people require a car to get to work (especially in areas without public transportation) and the government requires auto registration and insurance payments.

How is this really any different from a new tax (say a sales tax) which almost everyone is required to pay?

You can try to make the argument, but I doubt any court will take it seriously.

Also, every state I've been in has programs available wherein you can get public health mandated vaccinations for free, or at means-tested subsidized costs.

You mean like subsidized costs (to almost free) for health care premiums like Massachusetts' plan?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Also, every state I've been in has programs available wherein you can get public health mandated vaccinations for free, or at means-tested subsidized costs.

You mean like subsidized costs (to almost free) for health care premiums like Massachusetts' plan?

Beat me to it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't think that argument would get you anywhere in court. Simply because you are allowed to choose to get a car (and we know most people are forced to do so because work, going to the grocery store, etc) doesn't make it any less of a governmental 'taking'. Your property (ie, your money) is being taken by the government if you decide to get a car. Most people require a car to get to work (especially in areas without public transportation) and the government requires auto registration and insurance payments.

You're still not forced, and all of it relates to operation of the car on public roads. Most states have non-operation exemptions as well, so if you have a car you don't intend to use during a given year, then you don't have to pay registration fees. If you're not driving for some reason, you can drop your insurance, and then start it up once you decide to drive again. You don't have to pay road use fees, vehicle registration, and purchase insurance simply to live in the state.

How is this really any different from a new tax (say a sales tax) which almost everyone is required to pay?

You're taxing an activity (i.e. purchase of goods in commerce. This law requires you to pay merely on account of being a citizen of the state.

Also, every state I've been in has programs available wherein you can get public health mandated vaccinations for free, or at means-tested subsidized costs.

You mean like subsidized costs (to almost free) for health care premiums like Massachusetts' plan?

Hey, if they let people opt out, or provide a "free" alternative for those who can't afford it, then no problem.

But if it's mandatory, and always has some cost no matter the need, use, or means, then it's different.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey you can make the argument, but like I said, I don't think any court is buying it. Way too much of a streach.

This law requires you to pay merely on account of being a citizen of the state.

And? Where is that prohibited by the US Constitution? It's going to be a reaaaal streach to call it a 'taking' without due compensation, considering that taxes aren't and that is basically all this is. And what is the 'due compensation' for this anyway? They give you a firm handshake and tell you good job?

Say Mass says instead of income and sales tax, every citizen will be required to pay $X a year for the state budget. Is that a 'taking'? Because that'd really be a strange definition of a taking.

Has there been any case that said a 'takings' dealt with anything other than physical property (ie, land or physical objects... not money)? AFAIK, the Takings Clause been applied to physical condemnation of land or regulations reducing the value of land.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Leaving the constitutional slugfest to Imran and MtG...

I have to say, this plan really blows. You'd think that with all the (perfectly appropriate) whining states do about getting "unfunded mandates" from Congress, they'd think twice about foisting unfunded mandates off on their own citizenry.

And, frankly, this is very un-Massachussetts, too. If you can't trust Taxachussetts to set up a single-payer system, whom can you trust?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Leaving the constitutional slugfest to Imran and MtG...

I have to say, this plan really blows. You'd think that with all the (perfectly appropriate) whining states do about getting "unfunded mandates" from Congress, they'd think twice about foisting unfunded mandates off on their own citizenry.

QFT

I am very much against this proposal.

And I speak as one of the very people this law targets and will hurt the most. I am a single man without health insurance who is at or below the poverty line. No way can I afford health insurance, and I don't need it since I'm reasonably healthy. Its a rational cost-benefit analysis on my part.

Thankfully I don't live in Massachusetts, but I can forsee something like this catching on. I don't know what I'd do if I had to pay for something like this... I've grown rather accustomed to eating...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ozzy:

Uninsured people earning less than the federal poverty threshold would be able to purchase subsidized policies that have no premiums, and would be responsible for very small co-payment fees for emergency-room visits and other services. Those earning between that amount and three times the poverty-level amount would be able to buy subsidized policies with premiums based on their ability to pay.