Is there a precedent for mandating EVERY CITIZEN make a purchase from a private business, by law?

[Matariki]

I wonder, if a mandate is written into the 'health insurance reform' bill, if it will be met with a lot of legal challenges. I certainly hope so.

(edited to clarify the question)

[TexasObserver]

1. auto insurance

It's mandated for all who own or drive cars.

[Matariki]

6. That doesn't mandate EVERYONE purchasing something, simply for being alive

Owning a car is voluntary. Being born isn't. I suppose you could say that being alive is voluntary and if we don't want to buy health insurance we could, as Michelle Bachmann says, "slit our wrists".

I'm thinking if Congress passes a bill with a mandate that everyone MUST buy insurance and there is no public option, then it will be a precedent. A very creepy precedent.

[Deja Q]

8. And Michelle Dipshit has said buses are too expensive, so private transport is here to stay.

Too many people CAN'T go without cars.

[Matariki]

17. Nonetheless - mandated insurance is associated with an auto purchase

I'm looking for a purchase mandated by the mere fact of being a citizen of this country.

[paulsby]

113. technically not correct about mandated auto insurance

this is only required if you plan to operate a motor vehicle on PUBLIC ROADWAYS. i can buy a MV with cash, and garage it, and be under no obligation to insure it. the insurance is a requirement if it's financed (duh), or if you plan to drive it on public roadways. i can buy a car w/cash and drive it on my private property, no license OR insurance required.

also, even if you drive on public roadways, you are not technically required to BUY insurance, if you can prove you are sufficiently capitalized to cover the mandated limits. my police agency is self insured for example. we don't need insurance, because we (our govt. agency that represents us) has sufficient capital.

some individuals are self-insured for their cars. gotta have big bucks and be willin' to risk it though.

but more to the point, is the first point. insurance is required to USE your car on a PUBLIC way.

iow, it's a requirement of 1) driving 2) on a public way

[havocmom]

91. LOL, if you have to, you find out you can

Working poor frequently don't own cars. It is possible to survive carless.

[TexasObserver]

16. I answered your question. That doesn't mean I support the proposition.

You asked if there was a precedent. There is. Auto insurance. Social Security and Medicare.

I am opposed to any system that mandates health insurance, but that is a separate question from whether there are precedents for such a system.

[Matariki]

21. I don't mean to be rude, but you aren't reading my question correctly.

Social Security and Medicare aren't PRIVATE companies. Auto and Home insurance are based on associated purchases which are voluntary.

[TexasObserver]

29. Let's agree that we agree on the concept.

We oppose any form of mandated health insurance purchased from the private sector, and don't consider such to be health care reform, but government serving the needs of the health care industry.

[Matariki]

34. Indeed. I see it as taxation on behalf of a private sector.

And that, I think, is what is unprecedented.

[Justitia]

24. Soc Sec & Medicare are not private, for-profit programs. -eom

[verges]

110. And you would still be able to refuse to buy

health insurance. You simply couldn't get treated; unless you pay a substantial fine.

The requirement is essential to make this thing work. So is the PO. And so are the subsidies. Out of the three, the PO is the most expendable. But only if something else is put in it's place. And no other practical suggestions have come out. The only suggestions are co-ops and triggers. Neither of wich are likely to work.

Without the mandate, too many people will still continue to not buy insurance. The poor, the young etc.. And when they get sick, their lack of paying into the system will still keep costs high. Everybody who uses the system has to pay in. Single payer would still have to be the same.

[eridani]

124. Except single payer doesn't pay useless intermediaries n/t

[verges]

129. I agree. However,

that ain't gonna happen. The opposition to SP would be even greater than that to the PO. Politically, it would be impossible to pass. Even though it IS the best answer.

[eridani]

135. But if we'd started out by demanding a pony--

--we might have at least gotten a kitten.

[verges]

136. Again, I agree with you.

It was a stupid tactical move. When you negotiate, always ask for more than you expect to get. But, unfortunately, we started negotiations from a compromise.

[cherokeeprogressive]

81. Wrong. Not in California, that state with more cars than any other...

In California you do NOT have to purchase automobile insurance from a private company. You must, however, provide proof of "financial responsibility". Those would be, by law:

Types of financial responsibility

•A motor vehicle liability insurance policy
•A cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV
•A DMV issued self-insurance certificate
•A surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm

[anigbrowl]

92. Yeah, but I can choose not to drive (and in fact, I don't)

I didn't particularly object to buying insurance when I had a vehicle, but the primary purpose was to provide coverage in case I hit someone else. Mandatory private health insurance is something different - it will immediately be challenged under the 14th amendment as a kind of poll tax, and IMO rightly so. I'd much rather pay 1% more income tax.

[Hannah Bell]

120. but not for *every* citizen, including non-drivers & children.

[WinkyDink]

128. Not anywhere near the same. What would Americans' choices be: buy insurance or kill yourself?

[TexasObserver]

130. Your reply has nothing to do with mine.

The OP asked a question. Is there a precedent? The answer is the one I gave.

Your post is about how much you don't like a requirement of mandatory insurance, which has nothing to do with my post, which is about the precedent.

[Kansas Wyatt]

134. Driving is a "privilege" in States, where certain laws have to be followed...

Before you drive your vehicle on a public road... Licensing, which includes drivers license and vehicle registration.

If the State were to force people to have and maintain insurance as a requirement for getting and having a drivers license, then you may have a point. States avoided that area by attaching the requirement to the vehicle, but not drivers license.

Does the Federal Government now consider it a 'privilege' for a citizen to live in this country?

[JonQ]

2. Not exact but

car insurance would be comparable. Granted if you don't drive you don't need one. But for the most part it is a mandatory private business purchase.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Miullions don't drive. they aren't forced to buy a private product. Also people can post a bond in

lui of private auto insurance in most places.

And for those who do drive, it's always amazed me at how people are willing to allow a private monopoly on mandatory shared auto liability risk.

Think how much cheaper it would be if everyone paid at the pump. Every driver would be covered for basic liability, no more police and court costs for enforcement, no more uninsured drivers.

Anyway, car insurance isn't comparable at all. Driving is a privilege, not a right. And millions don't drive. Those who either choose not to drive or aren't allowed to drive aren't assessed any legal sanction for failing to carry private insurance.

[JonQ]

31. If everyone paid for everyone elses insurance

good drivers would be penalized, paying for the higher rates associated with bad drivers.

I think irresponsible drivers should be penalized with higher rates, anything to encourage them to do better.


Millions don't use hospitals every year. Medical insurance wouldn't be mandatory, only for those who want to use a hospital. Just like car insurance isn't mandatory if you don't drive.

[John Q. Citizen]

51. Good drivers would pay less than they do now, and all drivers would pay something,unlike now,

People who are good drivers and only drive to church on Sunday would no longer pay the same rates as people who are good drivers and drive daily.

People with two cars (who can only operate one at a time) wouldn't be paying about double as much as people with one car.


I can tell you haven't been following the health care issue very closely, so you are spreading your misconception of the issues as fact.

Please read the bills and then comment.

They are HR3200 in the house and the HELP bill in the Senate. You can google them. Tomas.gov has them

Commenting first before you actually read the bills being considered just puts bad, wrong, or unreliable information out there.


Thanks.

[JonQ]

137. False

It wouldn't save money.

People who are good drives and drive all the time would be penalized, people who are bad drivers and drive infrequently would be rewarded.

[Uzybone]

3. car insurance, duh

[jannyk]

11. But no-one is forced to buy a car...

You aren't forced to buy auto insurance if you don't own a vehicle.

[Mz Pip]

4. Home owners insurance

We had to provide proof of it in order to buy our house and then to refinance.

[TorchTheWitch]

20. but no one is forced to own a home

Same thing with auto insurance - no one is forced to own a car. With health there is no way to opt out as everyone has to own a body.

[Mariana]

74. If you own your home outright, it's not required anyway. nt.

[Justitia]

22. only your lienholder requires it, no one else. It is to protect them, not you. -eom

[havocmom]

90. That is a requirment of the loan, not the ownership of the house

The lenders require insurance on the collateral. Not the same as mandatory health insurance on a person.

[TorchTheWitch]

119. same with auto insurance

Only liability is mandated to protect other drivers/passengers/owners for what damage/injury you cause... doesn't cover you or your car. If you have a lien on your car then the lien holder will more than likely require that you carry collision as well to protect their collateral.

The very idea of mandated health insurance turns my stomach.

[havocmom]

132. Mandated health insurance is the placing of a payroll tax on workers, payable to private corporation

It strikes me as fascist. It strikes me as an end run around the resounding refusal to 'privatize' Social Security, which would also have been a payroll tax on workers, payable to private business.

[treestar]

108. The bank demanded that, not the government

The bank wants to know its security is covered.

[paulsby]

114. not if you OWN the house

if you can buy a house WITHOUT financing, no insurance required.

you are required to insure it if you finance it, iow, if the BANK owns it. for good reason. because the bank doesn't want to lose THEIR investment/equity

[brewens]

5. Car insurance.

The state forces me to have automobile insurance. At least liability. We, responsible drivers, are way overcharged to subsidize people that shouldn't be allowed to drive at all.

[cherokeeprogressive]

87. The Idaho Vehicle Code does NOT require the purchase of private insurance.

From your state legislature's website:

TITLE 49
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 12
MOTOR VEHICLE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

49-1229 REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE

(2)A motor vehicle owner who prefers to post an indemnity bond with the director of the department of insurance in lieu of obtaining a policy of liability insurance may do so.

[brewens]

97. Thanks. I may check into that.

I had no idea we had another option and I never heard anyone say they did that.

[cherokeeprogressive]

98. I had meant to provide a link, sorry I forgot, but here's the section in the Vehicle Code

Sorry for the delay.

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title49/T49CH12SECT49-1229PrinterFriendly.htm

[John Q. Citizen]

7. I can't think of any forced private purchase by everyone on federal or even state codes.

If you want to throw a rock concert, you might need to show proof of being able to cover liability, whether as a bond or through insurance. Same with if you decide that you want to operate an automobile on public roads.

But no. I can't think of any other forced purchase of a private product legally required by the feds or by states.

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. No reason to expect the legal challenges to succeed under the...

...con-law status quo. It's going to be very hard to get a Constitutional argument to stick, at least based on existing 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

A universal mandate doesn't raise an equal-protection issue more or less by definition. And on due process, it should sail through, since the legislation's going to have no problem clearing the 'rational basis' test, and absent some form of invidious discrimination based on membership in a suspect class, it's not going to be subject to strict scrutiny.

And apart from the 14th, I don't see a way in. The Takings Clause has equally little chance, less after Kelo. It would require a novel approach from the plaintiffs and a lot of new ground broken by the Court.

Sometimes the only way to undo bad legislation is to have another legislature do it, by way of repeal. In general we expect too much from courts, and from the executive, and too little from legislatures.

[Matariki]

14. Thanks for your answer. It seems like taxation on behalf of private interests.

Well if there's no way to challenge it legally, I hope there are massive protests should congress dare to add this to the bill.

I imagine that even the idiot tea-baggers and birthers, once they wake up from their hate hangover, are going to be sorry if this gets in the bill.

[Romulox]

67. I think this approaches the question as a foregone conclusion.

The Federal government's powers are not unlimited. The Federal government needs a jurisdictional "hook" in order to exert its power. Since there is no general "police power" in the Federal government, and no affirmative grant of the power to force the purchase of a product from a private company to be found in the Constitution, all that remains is the much-abused Interstate Commerce Clause.

This will leave the Federal government to argue that merely being alive "affects interstate commerce"--a logically embarrassing and morally repugnant argument. If this argument wins the day, it will once and finally elevate the ICC to the ultimate power granted by our Constitution, which trumps all other powers and prohibitions contained therein. After all, if being alive "affects interstate commerce", then all human activity may be regulated under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Under this framing, I can easily see both the Court's liberals and conservatives hold that mandating the purchase of private insurance under the flimsy premise that refusing to do so "affects interstate commerce" is a Constitutionally untenable argument before any arguments about takings or due process are reached.

[Davis_X_Machina]

73. The conservatives...

...no matter how 'libertarian', are not going to shoot down a mandate that uses the coercive power of the state to require purchases from private corporations. That's a conservative's wet dream.

And most con-law is privative. You take a piece of legislation into court and show where it violates the constitution. It's very unusual to go the other route, and sue because you can't find in the document and accumulated precedent where it's legitimated.

[Fumesucker]

126. Logically embarassing and morally repugnant arguments won't even slow down a lawyer...

Or at least they'll always be able to find some lawyer who will argue anything, see Yoo, John..

[truedelphi]

96. Great post. yes, we do expect too little from the legislatative branch

However, isn't there a way for we the citizens to attack the notion that we must purchase a product from such a criminal and defective enterprise as the modern insurance industry?

Example: it could be argued that when a state enacts a law stating that a motorcyclist must wear a helmet, then that cyclist is being ordered to purchase a helmet. But even so, the biker is given the choice of choosing whichever manufacturer of said helmets that he wants. If he or she was required to purchase from the same manunfacturer(s) who had been shown time after time to have defective prodyucts, would there not be legal recoruse int hat matter?

[Matariki]

10. Home and Auto insurance doesn't count - the question is mandated for EVERY citizen.

Not something associated with another purchase such as a car or home or running a business.

[elleng]

12. Not from 'a' private business, from one of many.

The examples mentioned are intended to protect the general public from being forced directly to subsidize the behavior and/or circumstances of society at large.

The medically uninsured either force society to ignore them, let them wither and die, or provide for their care in some manners, like forcing doctors and hospitals to care for them, or providing some sort of coverage for them, like medicare and medicaid.

Those who object to being 'forced' to purchase insurance, if they are able, would make what argument against such? That they don't believe in society, or laws, or what?

[girl gone mad]

84. I would refuse any mandate..

to subsidize businesses which I consider wholly unethical and illegitimate.

[Cleita]

13. Car insurance and it shouldn't be legal. Citizens should have a choice of

buying a government protection plan for their cars instead of private insurance and should be able to get government subsidies if paying for it causes hardships or if they are unemployed and unable to. As a matter-of-fact, there should be government protection plans for every kind of disaster we now pay insurance for. We want a choice, period, if they are going to issue mandates. This whole issue has made me so mad that I'm going very socialist on everything right now.

[elleng]

25. Socialist, or libertarian?

Many states (most? all?) have special provisions for those who cannot afford generally available auto insurance; they're put in a pool and pay lower rates, and we the rest of society subsidize their coverage.

[Cleita]

33. I want so socialize everything that's a necessity for life liberty and

the pursuit of happiness. The only capitalism that should be allowed in a society that cares about even the least of us is markets for luxury items and they can compete with each other and sell on the stock market and do all those things once the basic needs of society are met. If those provisions are so available, then why are so many still driving around without insurance? If we went back to the 90% tax rates for anyone earning more than five million dollars a year in income and/or wages, they would be the ones subsidizing, not average wage earning citizens. I think that CEO earning $100,000 an hour could scrape by with $10,000 an hour. Don't you think so?

[kelly1mm]

89. Interesting thoughts. Do you envision certain % of income for different

basics i.e. 20% of income for housing and the rest of the cost (if any) subsidized? If it for "basic" housing or any housing? Same question as to transportation. Are buses free and private transport on one's dime? Or only a certain % of income for transportation? Same for a Honda Civic as a Porche Cayenne? What about food? Subsidized rice and beans or lobster and steak for every meal? Basically I am asking if you would please flesh out your ideas some more as I think it is an interesting idea.

[Cleita]

101. Well let's start with a living income that all businesses should be required to pay.

Also, guaranteed jobs for those who are able to work but unemployed. There is always something that needs doing and if you have to tax the rich to create decent paying jobs for the poor, I say go for it even if it's maintaining our national monuments, parks and preserving our natural wilderness, not to mention keeping our cities clean and beautified. I think public transportation should be free, and paid for by taxes from the businesses who benefit from getting their workforce and customers to and from the place of business. I also believe education for every child, all the way up to a Phd like in Sweden or good and current trade school education and apprenticeships for those who aren't college material. I also believe businesses should pay for this in taxes because they are the ones who benefit from an educated and trained work force. A decent wage wouldn't require giving the poor rice and beans, but let them choose what they want to eat within their income. Also, for those who can't work, we need decent welfare that pays for an adequate apartment, food and other necessities. Years ago welfare families could rent in middle class neighborhoods according to their needs and the government paid their rent and utilities. They received food stamps and health care besides a monthly living allowance. It didn't shove the poor, mostly single mothers and the disabled into projects and seedy neighborhoods until Reagan came along. I lived in buildings with welfare recipients and I didn't live in seedy neighborhoods, just working class neighborhoods. It's good for people to be among other people not as fortunate as themselves. Well you get the idea. We could do so much better and we have in the past. I remember back when there weren't any homeless because people could go to government agencies to get the help they needed. Sure, things weren't perfect, but they were a helluva lot better than now, when homeless guys with cancer are allowed to die in a field like a feral cat.

[kelly1mm]

112. Thanks for the details! Like I said, interesting ideas. nt

[Vidar]

127. I'll gladly join your party.

[SammyWinstonJack]

133. So would I. nt

[MissMarple]

15. Except for voluntarily selected activities, as in "if you choose to do X , then you need Y".

The government at any level doesn't mandate health coverage just because of citizenship. We do get it at a very basic level if our lives are in critical danger, and we make it to an emergency room. The hospital is required by law to provide basic emergent and stabilization care. And, then they can dump you out on the street.

Refusal of services was quite common before Congress mandated emergent care. Oh, the joys of the "free" market.

[Matariki]

38. Yes. I couldn't think of any example other than voluntarily selected activities

It sounds like thhe talk of mandating health insurance in the 'insurance reform' bill is getting serious consideration. I find that troublesome for so many reasons. Least of not which is the precedent of the government essentially acting as a tax collector for a private industry.

[Justitia]

18. Car ins is not an accurate comparison. Not everyone owns a car & it's only liability to others

that is required.

Car insurance is only mandatory for liability purposes - to protect someone else should you hurt them with your car.

Also, liability car ins is only required if you own & drive a car, not simply for being alive & breathing.

Additionally, you are not penalized via federal taxation if you do not purchase private, for-profit car insurance.

This comparison is not accurate at all.

I know of no existing legal liability for individual citizens to buy a private, for-profit, corporate product as a consequence of living.

[Cleita]

37. If you live in California and need a job, a car is a necessity. Our public

transportation in most cities is inadequate and since a large part of California is rural or semi-rural, a car is a necessity of life. So pretty much everyone, except some elderly, who don't drive anymore, and children have to have car insurance.

[Justitia]

40. I understand what you are saying about public transportation, but still not an accurate comparison.

I live in TX, I totally understand the need for a vehicle.

However, truly, not everyone owns a car or drives.

You are not required to purchase car insurance if you do not own a car or drive.
You are also not penalized via federal taxation if you fail to purchase required car insurance.

[subcomhd]

23. In some other countries, i think.

Doesn't Switzerland require everyone to buy insurance?

[Davis_X_Machina]

28. Almost.

There are provisions for those with essentially no income -- the homeless and indigent, students (IIRC), prisoners, the legally incompetent, etc

Krugman, on the Swiss.

[Cleita]

35. However, it is my understanding that Switzerland has both public and private

health insurance you may choose from and that there is assistance for the poor.

http://www.justlanded.com/english/Switzerland/Switzerland-Guide/Health/Health-insurance

[Davis_X_Machina]

43. All private, in the sense of non-government...

May be some mutuals and non-profits, though, there are 90+ carriers and I just skimmed....

Play here: http://www.comparis.ch/

See what the Swiss market looks like -- they have an English option -- for postal code, throw in any 4 digit number beginning with 3.

Choose model, deductible, etc, and look at the results. It's interesting.

[Cleita]

55. I don't read German.

However, the system works because it's regulated. Every company has to offer the same coverage. They can charge more for more illnesses. I don't believe there are denials or cancellation of coverage for pre-existing conditions. But also the Swiss are by and large an affluent nation that works like clockwork (eh a little of a pun intended). I don't think it would work very well here with a large population of very poor people or those who are living hand to mouth.

[Davis_X_Machina]

60. We could make it, or any other plan work...

...if we wanted to. "The fault dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings."

English link here: http://www.comparis.ch/changelang.aspx?lang=en

[kenny blankenship]

99. Did you know that the law forbids these private companies from making a profit on basic insurance?

The insurance coverage that is mandated by Swiss law is also non-profit by law.
Free market swindlers and propagandists always forget to mention that point for some reason!

Insurers in Switzerland can only profit from supplemental insurance, which is non-mandatory.

"All private, in the sense of non-government..."

EXCEPT IN THE SENSE THAT THE GOVERNMENT MANDATES THAT IT BE PROVIDED AT NO PROFIT. Yeah aside from that little detail you're quite right. Aside from the fact that the government completely regulates the market to the point even of forbidding the profit motive, it's all "private enterprise."

[Cleita]

102. Yes, all these nations who mandate private insurance make

certain that all the insurers offer the same coverage and that they have to be non-profit for the basic coverage.

[ejpoeta]

26. most states require the purchase of car insurance... but that is for people who register vehicles

so it is not ALL citizens.

[paulsby]

115. and note that you don't NEED to register

UNLESS you plan to drive on PUBLIC roadways

heck, you don't even need a license if you don't plan to drive on public roadways.

and of course, when driving on public roadways, you are operating a deadly weapon, at high speeds, one that results in more accidental deaths than any other single cause.

[drm604]

27. This may not be what you're looking for

but nearly everywhere has laws against public nudity. Unless you're going to harvest the fibers or hides yourself and then manufacture the clothing, you're required to purchase it.

Another one is school supplies. Many school districts require that the children bring in their own pencils and notebooks.

Of course, you might be able to get either of those things through charity, but in theory, you could get health insurance through charity.

I'm sure there are other examples.

[Matariki]

36. well, that's an interesting answer!

[Cleita]

39. If there is a charity that provides health insurance, please put it up here

so that the forty million uninsured Americans out there can have a look at it. This is an apples and oranges comparison. Clothes for charity are already worn hand me downs. I don't think you can hand down health insurance.

[drm604]

64. I said in theory. Do you know what "in theory" means?

I thought that someone would object that clothing and school supplies could be gotten through charity, which they can, and that that would disqualify them from the question. I don't think it disqualifies them because, IN THEORY, anything could be gotten from charity, including health insurance. In theory, some philanthropist could pay for someone's insurance.

I don't think that will actually happen, but if someone is trying to build some kind of legal case against mandatory insurance it's important to point out potential examples of other mandatory purchases and to point out that the fact that they can sometimes be gotten through charity doesn't really make them different from a legal standpoint. Of course, I am not a lawyer.

[Cleita]

70. Actually, it's no theory. Catholic hospitals have been providing charitable

assistance to indigent people since they built the first hospitals in the Middle Ages. The problem with charity is that they never reach everyone who needs it because they have to turn people away who are not as needy as those they do take in and they are subject to the vagaries of donations to function. So the 'theory' behind universal access to health care is to cover everyone by spreading the risk. Everyone who can pays into it but even those who can't like elderly, children and disabled have the same access to health care as everyone else. In practice experience has shown that the governments of nations are best able to it to make sure everyone is covered with health care. In order to do that, it has been shown that single payer plans like Medicare work best. Even health care advocates like Tom Daschle and Barack Obama have said single payer is the best system, but for some reason or other have proclaimed it won't work for us. They are simply afraid of the insurance companies or they are bought by them but it is the insurance companies who are in the way of decent health care for all in this country. To force people to buy a product from companies they don't trust whom they know are greedy pigs is really selling out. IMHO.

[tsuki]

30. Workers' compensation, General Liability. There are two that are

mandated under penalty of law.

[Justitia]

32. Once again, those are liability products, to protect others (not you) from injury.

They are also associated with a specific activity, not simply being alive.

Also, not universally compulsory - not all states require workers comp insurance by law.

[tsuki]

75. Okay, Medicare C & D. I have to pay by law for Medicare. 2.9%

[Justitia]

78. Medicare C & D are not mandatory. C is Medicare Advantage, D is the drug program.

They are supported by the premiums paid to the private, for-profit corporations that administer them.

They are, however, capitated & regulated by federal statute.

2.9% is the combined (employer & employee) payroll tax rate for Medicare, which is a public, not-for-profit gov't health program.

[tsuki]

82. I have to pay for those programs under penalty of law. I have to pay

for C, and I have to pay for D. There is no need for the massive transfer of funds from Medicare to private insurers under C.

You cannot split hairs. Either I am paying for premiums to private, for-profit corporations, or I am not. I really don't care how many hands wash the money before it gets to Dollar Bill McGuire.

As for the employer-employee split, that is so much BS. Do you really think that you are not paying the full amount? Do you really think that employer mandates are not passed on to you when you look at the raise you are offered, if you are offered a raise? The insurance industry made a really smart move when it started basing all its mandated cost to business on a percentage of their payroll. Currently, I pay workers' comp, general liability, Medicare, Social Security, Federal Unemployment, State Unemployment as a percentage of my payroll. So if your pay increases, so does my cost of doing business.

[Justitia]

85. regarding parts C & D

Part C:

The gov't pays a standard rate per enrollee to Medicare Advantage plans to transfer care of recipients.
You would be paying for those same recipients under Original Medicare.
Having said that, Medicare pays a higher rate for Part C recipients (about 12%), and that is why those plans are going to be phased out.

Part D:

While this is a cash bonanza for ins companies (thanks to the Bush admin & repub congress), it does provide a new benefit to seniors that was not available to many before (drug coverage).
We should not be so upset about the new benefit as we are about the use of gatekeepers (insurance companies) that profit from it.
It could be set up just like veterans receive drug coverage via the VA.
So, I'd be happy w/the new benefit of Part D - if it weren't administered by ins companies.

Both parts above are voluntary and supported by premiums, deductibles & co-pays.
They are both regulated (to varying degrees) by federal statute.
Yes, some portion of your withheld taxes subsidize these products but not to the same degree as Original Medicare - which we both like, right?

On your withholding complaints, I cannot really comment. I can only give you the federal rate structure.

[tsuki]

93. They are not voluntary. I HAVE to pay for them. The OP asked if

there were any programs mandated by law where the money went to a private corporation. Yes, there are. This is one.

I understand that C&D were set up to bankrupt the system by the Republicons. I did not approve, but I still have to pay for C&D. That is not voluntary.

[Justitia]

95. Well, if we are splitting hairs like that....not really. Still not required of everyone.

Just don't work and you won't have to submit payroll taxes. Then you won't be funding Medicare programs - any of them.

Only working people are mandated to pay for Medicare (besides retired recipients who pay premiums, of course).

THAT IS STILL DIFFERENT FROM MANDATED INSURANCE

Mandatory insurance would require every breathing citizen to buy a private product from a private, for-profit corporation for simply being ALIVE.

It wouldn't matter whether you were working or not.

I'm sure you see the difference in that.

But maybe you aren't a fan of any kind of Medicare?

[tsuki]

106. Not a fan of regressive taxation, which since the Reagan years, is

what Medicare is. We, as employers, are told that Medicare and Social Security is a tax, and the payments to the recipients are entitlements. The number of people that are exempted from the tax is staggering.

Non-working people, btw, would have government help to pay the premiums and they would still have to buy insurance.

You will be mandated to buy insurance. If you have a public option or not, you will purchase insurance. Single payer is the only non-purchased insurance I know of.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

77. There are non-profit government established alternatives to Workers Comp

The California government in 1914 established State Compensation Insurance Fund to provide Workers Compensation insurance in that state. They are a California non-profit, self-supporting, public enterprise fund, kind of like what the French call a "regie", like the Renault car company. They are in direct competition with private for-profit insurance companies and usually do a better job. From having dealt with them as an applicant's attorney many years ago, I found them to be more honest and straight forward than the for-profits when dealing with claims.

[tsuki]

79. In Florida, it is for-profit, for-profit, for-profit. They have jacked the

rates up and now, are denying benefits for every reason they can.

[Laelth]

41. No. None that I am aware of.

There is no parallel here in the United States. The individual mandate is a bad idea.

:dem:

-Laelth

[tosh]

42. I certainly hope so, too, Matariki.

I am morally, ethically and personally opposed to enriching that industry.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. Massachusetts basically did the same thing. Don't know of any legal challenges?

[Justitia]

45. Right. I've also been interested to know how that turned out legally. Anyone know? -eom

[Cleita]

56. I've read articles that it's put a big financial burden on the state because

premiums to insurers haven't been well regulated and that there is a growing population of very poor who are uninsured because they can't afford to buy it, even though it's mandated. We really need to get the for profit out of health care. It's the only thing that will work in a nation as large and diverse as this one. If Obama thinks he needs to pander to insurers then we need legislation to take them back to being non-profit like they used to be in the past.

[Matariki]

54. Interesting. The Massachusetts law included public coverage though, didn't it?

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/healthinsurance.html

St. 2006, c.58. An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care. Added MGL c.111M and amended many other sections. Key provisions of the law include subsidized health insurance for residents earning less than 300% of the Federal Poverty Level, and low-cost insurance for all other residents who are not eligible for insurance through their employers.

Commonwealth Connector. Despite the vague name, this is the state agency managing mandatory health insurance. The two basic programs are Commonwealth Care, for lower income residents, and Commonwealth Choice, which offers private sector alternatives for those who don't qualify for low-income insurance.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. I believe so.

The public option didn't work out so well when Tennessee tried it though. Lots of fraud, ridiculous benefits, poor management, etc. Insurance companies loved it though. They dropped all of their expensive clients to the public system. It didn't last long before it was bankrupting the State and they cut like 150,000 people off the public option (TennCare).

[FarCenter]

71. In NJ, the auto insurers dropped a lot of less desirable customers into the state pool

The New Jersey State Insureance Assigned Risk pool was the dumping ground of the auto insurance companies for anyone with teenage drivers, some points on their record, living in a theft risk neighborhood, etc.

Yes, you could get the mandatory auto insurance, but you paid a lot.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. That's what they did in Tennessee with patients.

The problem was there weren't enough paying clients to cover even a small portion of the costs of TennCare.

[Cleita]

46. Remember when Obama was originally talking about the insurance

exchange and he said it should cover everyone except 3% of the population? Remember how we got up in arms as to whom the 3% would be? Well, the explanation he gave was that there would be those who wouldn't want to participate in the program and would remain uninsured by choice. So it seems mandates weren't part of his original idea. However, the idea has evolved in Congress into a whole different concept. I think Congress will hand us a mess and I hope Obama will veto it and make them work on it some more until we get something that is satisfactory to the majority of Americans and health care providers, not the insurers and HMOs who caused the mess to begin with.

[Justitia]

48. Right. Obama was against mandates. It was the difference between he & candidate Clinton on reform.

[Bluerthanblue]

58. he was for mandating insurance for children only- and I agree

with him on this. I don't believe he has changed on this stance- and I'll be surprised if he signs a bill requiring people to purchase "private insurance". I could be wrong, and time will tell, but I believe he would not support that.

:hi:

[Bluerthanblue]

47. ...clothes?.... food.....? can't go around naked-

it may not be a specific mandate, but in this country you MUST have a residence, & clothing, or you can be arrested.

:shrug:

[Cleita]

49. If you had to have a residence, why are there so many homeless?

Clothing can be passed down to others after the original wearer is through with them. Health care can't.

[Matariki]

50. Good point. You can't dumpster dive for an insurance policy.

[Bluerthanblue]

53. because the laws about vagrancy are sporadicly enforced- and

while the notion of wearing passed down clothes works well- (our family very rarely buys new clothes) it can't be relied on to adequately clothe everyone.

I work with the homeless- and find the fact that lacking shelter can be compounded by arrest (yeah you get a bed for the night) to be inexcusable. Transporting people to the next town line is also common- and equally terrible imo.

I'm not in favor of mandating the purchase of private health insurance- and I don't believe it will be in the final bill that comes up for a vote. I for one, couldn't afford it- can't get blood from a stone.

:hi:

[Cleita]

59. There's another reason for wearing clothes and that's to protect one from

the elements, so I think our homeless would find clothes somewhere that they could wear to keep warm. I have seen them naked too and it does give them a room at the graybar hotel for the night. I think they then get sent to a social worker who finds charity clothes for them somewhere, but it has nothing to do with inability to get clothes but a lot to do with their mental illnesses.

[paulsby]

116. actually, if they are arrested, they will also get released

WITH clothes (At least in our jail). our jail provides clothing for all people arrested who need it (like if their clothes are soiled in blood/taken as evidence, etc.) and yes, they get to take the clothes WITH them when they are released.

i wouldn't be surprised if most if not all jails do this. if you get hauled in butt nekkid (and i have arrested more than a few nekkid people), they are provided clothing at the jail. to keep.

[DJ13]

52. People saying auto insurance are forgetting something

Those are state mandates.

It probably would be ruled unconstitutional for the Federal government to mandate private auto insurance.

And I bet Federally mandated private health insurance would be looked at by the USSC unfavorably when they are presented with a case.

[Cleita]

61. I hope so. The health care debate started out with providing access to

health care for all who needed it regardless of their ability to pay. When it got bastardized into this whole mandate, you have to buy a product from a company you don't want to give your money to, the purpose of health care reform was lost.

[FarCenter]

76. People drive cars across state lines

A federal requirement for auto insurance would almost certainly be constitutional by the interstate commerce clause.

The reason that insurance is regulated on a state level is that the insurance companies find it more advantageous to corrupt state politicians.

[paulsby]

117. it probably would be

on all but freeways or roads funded with federal monies

[adamuu]

62. You must attend school. In order to attend school, you must be clothed, get a checkup, etc

The obvious answer is auto insurance. But, I accept the argument that you don't need a car in order to live.

Here are some other examples. Admittedly they were harder to think up.

To attend school, you must buy clothes and shoes from a private or at least non-profit merchant. Schools won't accept naked students.
Registering for school requires a visit to the pediatrician for a checkup every four years or so. Unless you can find a pro bono pediatrician, this is a mandated private transaction. Even if you have insurance, there will be a co-pay.

In many places it is not legal to live under a bridge or set up a tent in a park. If there is no free housing in the area, then effectively it is mandated that you buy or rent shelter if you wish to continue living.

[rucky]

63. Funny how all examples are insurance-related.

Which shows what a racket it can be.

[drm604]

66. Have you read the entire thread?

They are not all insurance related.

[rucky]

105. Semantics aside, I made my point. What's yours?

[ipaint]

65. The insurance companies are lobbying now for stiffer penalties

for folks who don't pay. Considering the working class and below are in the middle of a depression, there should be plenty of folks unable to produce their un-subsidized share of welfare for the elite.


The mandate will fall apart after horrendous stories of excessive fines, destitution, homelessness and increasing numbers of uninsured are too many to ignore by the main street press.
Or the consequences of this current example of our "culture of cruelty", mandates to criminal ins. corporations, will start touching the edges of the comfortable, educated middle class. Usually when they start wailing the cruelty is ratcheted down to an acceptable level for them.
Much like what they considered health care reform today- a cut in premium price and the appearance of regulation.

Extra taxes for medicare for all, I'll happily contribute.
No choice of medicare combined with for profit, private insurance controlled mandates to cover profit and ceo pay for a needless, greedy middleman, nope.

[drm604]

68. If you want to stop discrimination against pre-existing conditions

than any system you create will have to mandate coverage. It doesn't work otherwise. Sorry.

A system that includes private companies and does not at least have a public option will mean that you are forced to purchase insurance from a private company. This is one of the reasons a private option should be available.

Ideally, it should be single payer.

[Matariki]

69. Ideally, it should be single payer.

AMEN.

[notesdev]

72. The national debt of course

You are making a purchase of debt from private entities through the medium of government taxation. The bailouts and GM/Chrysler also qualify - you bought stock in those companies whether you liked it or not.

By the way, the technical term for this sort of thing is "Fascism" or "Corporatism".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. Sewers, septic tanks, garbage removal?

[TorchTheWitch]

121. only if you own a home

As a renter, I don't pay any of that including maintenance on the water pipes (although renters can be required to pay for the water they use as I am). It's even required by law here that that stuff is to be paid by the home owner and not the renter.

My previous landlord (an absolute turd and nutcase) refused to pay for trash removal all the 8 years that I lived there. The code enforcement office was after him constantly and constantly fining him. Trash removal is VERY cheap... something like $50 a month. ONE of his fines was around $4,500 for not providing it (the bill for this particular fine was mistakenly delivered to my apartment and I opened it). We argued with him constantly that he was being an idiot for paying many many MANY more times in fines for not providing the trash removal than if he just paid for the trash removal. The renter that lived downstairs (there was only the two apartments in his building) even offered to pay for it himself... he just wanted trash removal so he didn't have to drive his trash to work and illegally dump it in his office building dumpsters, but the nutty landlord refused!

I've lived where I am now for several years and every time I take the trash to the curb for removal I still get a little thrill... after 8 years of mingling my trash with the neighbors' trash at 3am to try to get rid of it some way I'm not surprised that I revel in being able to take out my trash for collection like every other normal person.

[cherokeeprogressive]

86. People on this thread making the claim that AUTO INSURANCE is a mandated purchase from a private

company are flat wrong. California has a Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, not a mandated private insurance law. You can satisfy the law in four different ways.

Types of financial responsibility

•A motor vehicle liability insurance policy
•A cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV
•A DMV issued self-insurance certificate
•A surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm

[TexasObserver]

131. It's still mandatory to have insurance unless one meets the exception.

There is mandatory insurance required, with an exception for those who meet the financial responsibility requirements. And that is a tiny, tiny number who meet the exception.

You talk about the exception as if it changes the rule. It merely provides a way that people can alternatively provide proof of financial responsibility. The mandate for insurance remains, with that mandate being met by those who apply for and meet the financial responsibility requirements.

I'm sure they can craft such an exception to any law requiring health coverage, and it will also be meaningless and of no moment.

[starroute]

88. Why is everyone coming up with such tortured examples?

The original question was about legally forcing every citizen to make a purchase from a private business.

The emphasis is on *purchase.*

Laws against public nudity or vagrancy aren't comparable because there are plenty of ways to get clothing or housing without paying (hand-me-downs, staying with relatives, etc.) Those ways may not be available to an unfortunate minority, but nobody is forcing the 30-year-old living in his parent's basement to go out and rent an apartment of his own.

The nearest parallels that have been suggested all have to do with liability -- auto insurance in case you do damage to someone else, homeowner's insurance if your house is serving as collateral for a mortgage, vaccinations for schoolchildren who are going to be in close contact with other kids.

But there is no liability aspect to health insurance. It neither prevents harm to others nor backs up a personal financial obligation.

Any mandate to purchase health insurance would amount to a subsidization of the insurance companies. They really, really want to sign up all the currently uninsured younger workers to replace the baby boomers who are set to start going on Medicare. And in return for that, they're willing to make some nominal concessions, like eliminating pre-existing conditions.

But it's basically a scam. And the idea that the federal government should pay private companies (presumably at market rates) to provide insurance to the poor makes it that much more of a rip-off.

In fact, what it most reminds me of is the attempts by the RIAA and the MPAA to get the government to criminalize copyright violation and start arresting people who download pirate copies of CDs and movies.

It amounts to trying to turn government into the servant of the corporations, and if that isn't precisely fascism it's certainly fascism's first cousin.

[anigbrowl]

94. Because they're stupid

I'm pro single payer but I think the Democratic party have made a terrible, terible job of marketing their reform ideas so far.

Step 1: stop rabbiting on about the uninsured (which includes me). The uninsured are a MINORITY. When it comes to money, people tend to look out for their own interest first. The way to sell health reform and ultimately single payer) is to point out that it will be giver better coverage and better value than existing private insurance.

People don't like the government to force them to do something moral, even if they enjoy donating to charity. In order to make reform popular, a majority need to see how it will benefit them FIRST. The 'big picture' of how our current system drives up costs and results in lost productivity is too abstract for most people.

[Cleita]

104. What you said!

Hammer meet nail!

:thumbsup:

[lunatica]

100. I can't think of any precedent

People who drive have to have insurance and people who own condos have to pay Homeowners insurance but you're right to say those are still based on choices.

[leftofthedial]

103. in effect, that's what "war" is.

We're all buying pieces of Lockheed and GE and the other war profiteers. It's all in the name of private profit. It's just "laundered" with the blood of service men and women and innocent civilians.

[Junkdrawer]

107. It will be challenged in court...

The new law will be upheld.

And the precedent will be set.

[newspeak]

109. I worked for DMV and a driver's license is perceived as a privilege

do we consider breathing a privilege? Okay, maybe some corporations consider breathing a privilege, but life is a right. When California passed the insurance law for autos, I was upset because I felt that they should offer a governmental alternative, especially for the working poor. They were forcing people to buy auto insurance. The state attempted to pass a resolution that money would be added to the pump and all Californians would be basically covered and those with more assets could buy additional insurance from their private companies. The insurance industry spent millions of dollars to defeat the measure. How many people know what it's like to be at the mercy of a private industry (especially if you are a low paid young person)? My son went years without a vehicle because he couldn't afford the insurance. He took public transportation and that sometimes was not adequate. Sometimes he'd leave work late at night and transportation was no longer running.

I will not be at the mercy of for profit bloodsuckers. Because if they say they're going to strongly regulate the industry, I don't believe it. We, in essence, will be captive consumers. I just really don't think they can pull off a private plan like Switzerland, because I think the Health insurance industry has too much power and they will find a way around the no-profit basic care.

[sabrina 1]

111. Oops, I hit the unrec' button by mistake.

Could someone fix it please? :cry:

Regarding your question, I think Massachusetts has a mandatory clause in the Healthcare Bill. Mitt Romney's idea airc. And there is a fine for those who refuse to buy a premium.

Hillary Clinton was against it in the primaries, but Obama supported it.

[Gravel Democrat]

118. I think you've got it backwards re: obama/clinton

Obama's stand against mandatory health insurance is one of the main reasons
I supported him over Clinton who wanted citizens to show their health insurance
card when they applied for a job

"...Obama replied that his plan was universal (a claim we rated Barely True ) and explained why he was against a mandate: "A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. ... But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can't afford it. And that's why my plan emphasizes lowering costs...."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/20/barack-obama/obama-flip-flops-requiring-people-buy-health-care/

Seemingly no one cares about this major reversal

[sabrina 1]

122. Yes, you're right. Thanks for that important correction

I was rushing when I posted and I'm glad you corrected it. Because I too was not a Hillary supporter for two reasons, her war vote, I never felt she regretted it, and this. I do not agree with mandates.

I think the WH bill when it comes out, will be modeled on Romney's bill. Romney is against 'the government being involved in healthcare' and is against the public option. He has been pushing what he did in Mass lately, but also now defending that system as many say that it is costing way more than he had claimed it would.

I read today that there will most likely not be a Public Option in the WH bill. And I would not be surprised if we get Romneycare. And I cannot think of a worse political mistake for Obama to make if this is what we get. Romney is planning to run again in 2012. Imagine what he would do if the Democrats all but give him the credit for reforming the healthcare system. Not to mention the disaster such a system would be in itself.

[laughingliberal]

123. Well, I care about the reversal

I well remember the difference in his proposal and Senator Clinton's. She wanted to mandate everyone would obtain health insurance. Senator Obama proposed the insurance exchanges with a public plan being one of the choices. Now every bill voted out of committee includes a mandate with a fine for those who do not obtain insurance. And they are well on their way to dumping the public option. It is going to amount to a huge hit on workers without employer sponsored insurance.

[Obamanaut]

125. "Salary Czar", to decide what is an unreasonable CEO salary might

be considered a amsll step in that direction.