Massachusetts will require mandatory health insurance.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I don't see what all this fuss is about. MtG has a point. Auto Insurance is in case something bad happens to your car. Health Insurance is in case something bad happens to you. You use a road, you pay for insurance. You use a hospital, you pay for insurance.

So I guess that since only those who could get in a wreck have to pay insurance, only those who could get injured or sick should pay for insurance.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by 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.

Well, when you've got SCOTUS seriously asking why the Federal courts shouldn't be involved in anything "as important" as probate matters, and nobody raises any serious questions about the House version of the proposed brown people bill requiring churches to verify immigrations status of people to whom they give charitable aid, then it's not really surprising that courts wouldn't buy any Constitutional argument. The Constitution is all but dead anyway.

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.

Tell you what. The state you're in decides that all that policing and security and what not is better handled privately, so now you have a choice: You can pay monthly fees to Nation of Islam for their security services, or you can pay monthly fees to Blackwater USA. But if you don't, the state will fine you.

Taxes are paid to the government, for the government to provide (directly or indirectly), what are generally recognized as public benefits, such as police, fire protection, sewers, roads and public infrastructure, regulation of commerce, consumer protection, courts, etc.

And what is the 'due compensation' for this anyway? They give you a firm handshake and tell you good job?

You are being charged, as a general member of the public, for the provision of services to benefit the public.

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.

It's loony, but it's payment to the government (a tax) for services for the general benefit of the public. It's not mandated payment to or for the benefit of a private organization for a strictly personal theoretical benefit.

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.

Maybe that's because until now, neither the Feds nor any state government have been loony enough to rationalize taking something other than physical objects. There is no legal distinction between cash and other tangible personal property. Whether it's in a collection of Ben Franklin portraits in your mattress, or double eagles buried in a can in a fencepost bank, or electronic, it's still tangible property - it's not intellectual property or goodwill

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
I don't see what all this fuss is about. MtG has a point. Auto Insurance is in case something bad happens to your car. Health Insurance is in case something bad happens to you. You use a road, you pay for insurance. You use a hospital, you pay for insurance.

So I guess that since only those who could get in a wreck have to pay insurance, only those who could get injured or sick should pay for insurance.

The difference is that mandatory auto insurance is liability coverage only. The state doesn't mandate that you enrich State Farm or whatever other private entity they approve by purchasing full coverage.

If you want to risk your own vehicle, your call, but you don't have a right to operate a vehicle on public roads and put others at risk without having some form of liability coverage for the benefit of whoever you might whack with your car. And you don't have to purchase insurance - you can satisfy the statutory requirement by posting a bond, or other forms of financial guarantee if you have the assets and want to do it that way.

Nice try, though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Tell you what. The state you're in decides that all that policing and security and what not is better handled privately, so now you have a choice: You can pay monthly fees to Nation of Islam for their security services, or you can pay monthly fees to Blackwater USA. But if you don't, the state will fine you.

While it'd be silly, I don't neccesarily see the Constitutional issue there.

And of course, governments have outsourced, to private companies, certain responsibilities, like answering the phone. Why is this security outsourcing any different?

It's not mandated payment to or for the benefit of a private organization for a strictly personal theoretical benefit.

Neither is this. Unless you think the state of Massachusetts doesn't have to pay for uninsured hospital patients.

Maybe that's because until now, neither the Feds nor any state government have been loony enough to rationalize taking something other than physical objects. There is no legal distinction between cash and other tangible personal property.

Governments take cash all the time. You can say that the cash goes to governmental services, but the takings clause applies to the government even when it takes land for roads or governmental buildings. It requires the government to pay due compensation. I've never heard that argument for government tax revenue. If cash is the same as property and the government is 'taking' it, then shouldn't the due compensation argument click on then? Should 'due compensation' be given for taking tax money? If you say that governmental services are that due compensation, what about people who don't use that service.. they aren't getting their due compensation.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Governments take cash all the time. You can say that the cash goes to governmental services, but the takings clause applies to the government even when it takes land for roads or governmental buildings. It requires the government to pay due compensation. I've never heard that argument for government tax revenue. If cash is the same as property and the government is 'taking' it, then shouldn't the due compensation argument click on then? Should 'due compensation' be given for taking tax money? If you say that governmental services are that due compensation, what about people who don't use that service.. they aren't getting their due compensation.

This is what bugs me about this proposal. Governments do take cash all the time -- but that's not what's going on here. Instead, the govenment is ordering its citizenry to purchase a private service, not because of some voluntary action they've taken (like purchasing a car) but simply because they're citizens.

What could they do that would be more honest?

1) Take the cash and set up a single-payer system

2) Eliminate free hospitals and free clinics, then let people decide whether they want insurance

I think 1 is a good idea and 2 is a bad one, but they're both more transparent than this nonsense.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The difference is that mandatory auto insurance is liability coverage only. The state doesn't mandate that you enrich State Farm or whatever other private entity they approve by purchasing full coverage.

If you want to risk your own vehicle, your call, but you don't have a right to operate a vehicle on public roads and put others at risk without having some form of liability coverage for the benefit of whoever you might whack with your car. And you don't have to purchase insurance - you can satisfy the statutory requirement by posting a bond, or other forms of financial guarantee if you have the assets and want to do it that way.

Nice try, though.

Thank you.

But what you said isn't completely true. I thought there was something more than just that, and I found I was right.

You forgot about the PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION coverage, which is also mandatory for drivers in Massachusetts - no matter who is at fault in the accident, you are required to have PIP for yourself.

And there's also the Uninsured Motorist bodily injury coverage, meaning if the other driver is uninsured and you get hurt, there's still insurance for you.

So its not just about the other people. Its about you too.

http://www.autoinsuranceindepth.com/auto-insurance-Massachusetts.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
This is what bugs me about this proposal. Governments do take cash all the time -- but that's not what's going on here. Instead, the govenment is ordering its citizenry to purchase a private service, not because of some voluntary action they've taken (like purchasing a car) but simply because they're citizens.

But what's the US Constitutional issue? I aleady pointed out why I think calling it a 'taking' is too much of a streach, especially since it has been used specifically for land (physical taking and dimunation of value).

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


But what's the US Constitutional issue? I aleady pointed out why I think calling it a 'taking' is too much of a streach, especially since it has been used specifically for land (physical taking and dimunation of value).

I'm honestly puzzled by that. Your argument is convincing.

But in the best tradition of law school as depicted on tv, let's throw out a wacky hypothentical. Let's say a state -- let's say a beef-producing state, like Texas -- mandated that its citizens prepare or purchase steak dinners once a week. They don't have to eat them; they just have to make sure they spend money on steak. Could such a law be challenged on constitutional grounds?

[Zkribbler]

I don't think so...unless you can nail them for not providing a religious exception.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I don't think so...unless you can nail them for not providing a religious exception.

I don't think they'd have to. I'm aware of religions that prohibit eating meat, but none that prohibit purchasing it.

[Zkribbler]

But to purchase beef, it has to be dead. And killing cattle is a violation of one of the main commandments of the Church of the Holy Cow.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Amen

[Zkribbler]

It is indeed something to dance about!

[David Floyd]

My first thought is the 9th Amendment - powers not specifically granted to the feds or denied to the states are reserved to the states and the people.

From that standpoint, even though I disagree with the law, it would probably be Constitutional.

I agree that MtG has a valid point on the takings issue, but Imran's probably right about the courts not buying that argument.

Imran, here's what I have a problem with:

While it'd be silly, I don't neccesarily see the Constitutional issue there.

And of course, governments have outsourced, to private companies, certain responsibilities, like answering the phone. Why is this security outsourcing any different?

It's different because the government has a positive duty to enforce the law. The universally recognized way of doing so - call it an "industry standard" argument, if you will - is through an organized, standardized police force. The government can't outsource this duty to private companies any more than it can outsource the function of the court system to, say, the American Bar Association.

Rufus,

They don't have to eat them; they just have to make sure they spend money on steak. Could such a law be challenged on constitutional grounds?

Privacy. Griswold v. CT and related cases.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Rufus,



Privacy. Griswold v. CT and related cases.

My point was that my goofy "mandatory steak" example was no different from this mandatory health insurance scheme. So would you say Griswold could be used to challenge the Mass. law? (Gotta say, that seems a stretch.)