What Precedents are available for the health insurance mandate?

[cpwill]

this came up in a discussion, and I'll admit i have no idea. the only immediate cases i am aware of when the Supreme Court has limited Congressional authority under the commerce clause are cases such as Lopez; when the activity regulated was held to be non-commercial in nature. obviously this is not the case with health insurance.

HOWEVER, there is also no precedent for regulating a lack of economic activity on the Federal level. For a while I thought Social Security - Americans forced to purchase old age insurance - but when that law went to the Court it was defended under the Congress' power to tax (just as the Mandate is).

Is there precedent for or against the mandate separate from Congress' ability to tax?

 

[Harshaw]

Short answer: none.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Car insurance Mandate?

(Do all states have it?)

 

[Harshaw]

Car insurance Mandate?

(Do all states have it?)

Yes, they do.

But it's for an entirely different reason; you don't have to insure yourself; it's a state issue having nothing to do with the federal governemnt, the Constitution, or the Commerce Clause.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Car insurance Mandate?

(Do all states have it?)

Besides what Harshaw said you do not have to HAVE car insurance. You just can't legally drive without it. There are other means of transportation that is available besides your car. With the HC mandate you have to HAVE it no matter what. It is basically a tax on living.

 

[Kal'Stang]

this came up in a discussion, and I'll admit i have no idea. the only immediate cases i am aware of when the Supreme Court has limited Congressional authority under the commerce clause are cases such as Lopez; when the activity regulated was held to be non-commercial in nature. obviously this is not the case with health insurance.

HOWEVER, there is also no precedent for regulating a lack of economic activity on the Federal level. For a while I thought Social Security - Americans forced to purchase old age insurance - but when that law went to the Court it was defended under the Congress' power to tax (just as the Mandate is).

Is there precedent for or against the mandate separate from Congress' ability to tax?

As far as I can tell this is entirely new territory. The only time that this HC mandate is applied to the tax code is when you do or don't have health insurance. If you have it then you pay nothing in taxes. If you don't have it then you have to pay taxes...which when looked at closely is nothing more than a fine for not having health insurance.

 

[Technocrat]

Yes, they do.

But it's for an entirely different reason; you don't have to insure yourself; it's a state issue having nothing to do with the federal governemnt, the Constitution, or the Commerce Clause.

Very true. It is one of the many areas where states can do things the Federal Gov. can not as outlined in the 10th Amendment.

 

[Technocrat]

As far as I can tell this is entirely new territory. The only time that this HC mandate is applied to the tax code is when you do or don't have health insurance. If you have it then you pay nothing in taxes. If you don't have it then you have to pay taxes...which when looked at closely is nothing more than a fine for not having health insurance.

True.
I seem to recall that one of the federal judges hearing one of the cases stating that what is called a fine in the bill cannot be redefined as a tax to defend the bill. Can anyone help me verify this?

 

[GPS_Flex]

True.
I seem to recall that one of the federal judges hearing one of the cases stating that what is called a fine in the bill cannot be redefined as a tax to defend the bill. Can anyone help me verify this?

Calling it an “Alice-in-Wonderland tack,’’ Vinson wrote that Congress had tried to reap a political advantage during the debate by denying it was imposing a tax, and then sought a legal advantage in court by insisting it had done so.

 

[roughdraft274]

True.
I seem to recall that one of the federal judges hearing one of the cases stating that what is called a fine in the bill cannot be redefined as a tax to defend the bill. Can anyone help me verify this?

It was an excise tax. Anyone that denies it was a tax is delirious. You can argue that it wasn't a tax increase, maybe, since all it was was introducing a new form of tax, but it was a tax none the less. In the bill it's very obviously written as a tax.

 

[GPS_Flex]

It was an excise tax. Anyone that denies it was a tax is delirious. You can argue that it wasn't a tax increase, maybe, since all it was was introducing a new form of tax, but it was a tax none the less. In the bill it's very obviously written as a tax.

I agree. Obama is delirious: Video

 

[Kal'Stang]

It was an excise tax. Anyone that denies it was a tax is delirious. You can argue that it wasn't a tax increase, maybe, since all it was was introducing a new form of tax, but it was a tax none the less. In the bill it's very obviously written as a tax.

A tax is suppose to be applied to everyone with in a given framework. The framework in the HCR Bill is the whole populace of the US. Yet the "tax" is applied to only those that do not get health insurance. By defination a fine is something that is applied to someone for not doing something or doing something that is against the law. Since this "tax" is only applied to those that do not have health care insurance it is technically a fine. Not a tax. No matter what a politician says.

Since Obama and many supporters liked to use the car insurance as an example we will use it again here. Now. What happens if you do not have car insurance and you are pulled over by the police?

 

[ksu_aviator]

A tax is suppose to be applied to everyone with in a given framework. The framework in the HCR Bill is the whole populace of the US. Yet the "tax" is applied to only those that do not get health insurance. By defination a fine is something that is applied to someone for not doing something or doing something that is against the law. Since this "tax" is only applied to those that do not have health care insurance it is technically a fine. Not a tax. No matter what a politician says.

Since Obama and many supporters liked to use the car insurance as an example we will use it again here. Now. What happens if you do not have car insurance and you are pulled over by the police?

No, it is a conditional tax.

 

[Technocrat]

No, it is a conditional tax.

IF it is a tax, then it definitely is unconstitutional.

http://72.32.50.200/constitution/constitution.pdf

SECTION. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills.

(emphasis added)
This bill originated in the Senate, not the House, & did not go through conference. The House was not even able to offer amendments.
The administration should be careful what it asks for in this argument.

 

[ksu_aviator]

IF it is a tax, then it definitely is unconstitutional.

http://72.32.50.200/constitution/constitution.pdf


This bill originated in the Senate, not the House, & did not go through conference. The House was not even able to offer amendments.
The administration should be careful what it asks for in this argument.

It started in the House because they called it a tax bill.

 

[Technocrat]

It started in the House because they called it a tax bill.

No, it didn't.
If you will recall, there were originally two bills. One in the House the other in the Senate. The House bill contained things like a public option that the Senate bill lacked.
After the Senate bill passed, but before the bills went to conference, Scott Brown was elected to replace Teddy Kennedy & Democrats lost their Filibusterer majority.
In order to pass the law, Reid Pelosi & Obama put their heads together & decided to have the House vote to pass the Senate bill without amendments, hoping to pass a new bill that resolved their differences at a latter date. This is something that is without precedent in modern times.

To meet the requirements of Section 7 of the Constitution, all revenue bills must originate in and be passed by the House, then sent to the Senate. This one clearly did not. The fact that the House had their own bill is inconsequential as the House bill was not the one that was passed.
Had the Senate bill been sent to the conference committee where the house could add or modify provisions, then the requirement would have been met. That however did not happen.

 

[Kal'Stang]

No, it is a conditional tax.

I'm no tax man. So I tried to look up "conditional tax". The closest that I could come was "conditional sales tax". In that case something must be bought for the tax to apply. As someone who has not bought anything (health insurance) the conditional sales tax would not apply to me. The HCR's tax is taxing someone for not buying something.

Can you show me where in our whole history where individuals have had a tax placed on them for not doing something or not getting something in return?