Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]
Ah yes, of course! Is it a tax or not? Well, it's a choice, so how can a choice be a tax? Except that the choice is rather limited: you either get health insurance or get taxed. Hmm, but was the mandate designed to encourage people to get insurance or just penalize those who don't? Big Government or choice! Let the debate, I mean the hilarity, ensue!
You have a choice to get a driver's license.
You have a choice to purchase a car.
You have a choice of where you wish to reside, specifically, once you reach adulthood.
As such, as a licensed driver with a vehicle properly registed in the state where you reside, your state likely mandates that you have auto insurance (mimimum coverage: liability).
Q: What happens if you get pulled over by your local police or state highway patrol and they discover you don't have auto insurance?
A: You get a ticket that indicates a FINE you have to pay unless you can show proof of auto insurance.
Well, the same thing now applies with those individuals who don't buy health insurance but can afford to purchase it. As myself and others have been saying all along, this health care issue (which is really a health insurance issue) is jurisdicational. The states control their roads and highways and, as such, have the right (state's rights, folks) to impose a fine on those drivers who don't have auto insurance. Since insurance is part of interstate commerce AND health care expenditures have dramatically increased over the years particularly for the taxpayer by virtue of:
1) uncompensated care (hospitals)
2) Mecicare expenses (i.e., prescription drugs, treatment, services, etc.) (federal government)
3) Subsidized insurance premiums employer's pay on behalf of their employees (federal government)
4) Medicaid costs (states)
...it stands to reason that the federal government would eventually step-up to do what neither the private sector nor the states were willing or able to do which is find a way to bring down the cost of health care nationwide (or atleast try) and increase access to health care.
Back to the jurisdictional argument, here's an article from the
Insurance Journal dated January 2006 on how Kansas state legislature determined to handly uninsured motorist in their state. Notice the clear similarities between the "fine" imposed for the uninsured at the state-level and the "penalty" that would now be imposed at the federal-level for the insured where health insurance is concerned. More specifically, note the argument Republicans within he Kansas state legislature uses and see if it's any different from the argument currently used in the health care debate.
