• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the individual mandate health care legislation Constitutional?

Is the individual mandate Constitutional?

  • Individual Mandate IS.

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Individual Mandate ISN'T, Public Healthcare IS.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Neither Are.

    Votes: 8 80.0%
  • I Don't Care.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Phoenix

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
622
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Is mandating insurance coverage Constitutional?
Is public health care itself Constitutional?
What part of the Constitution authorizes it?
 
Nope, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to either run a health care program or force people to carry insurance.

Anyone that says yes has to cite the entry in the Constitution allowing this.

And it's not in there.

(No, fools, that's no what "general welfare" means, and you're only demonstrating your ignorance by bringing it up.)
 
A Federal requirement that you exercise your right to buy health insurance is no more constitutional than a federal requirement that you exercise your right to buy a gun, to vote, or go to church.
 
Last edited:
The only health care the Federal Government is supposed to provide is to our military but as we have seen in the last few years they cant even do that right.
 
I think there is room for reasonable debate on the manner. The problem really lies in what will government make? Because I'd say it's mostly going to be a play to the insurance companies. But medical care has become a rather complicated, aggregated system. In that, our technologies and medicines and procedures have been grown and advanced so much that it starts to become difficult on the personal basis to have good access to it. What can government do? I don't think it's out of the question to have some form of base insurance which covers large expenditures for complicated procedures. That's to say, that which has been aggregated to such a large level of complexity and expense. Cancer, heart disease, etc. If you removed these things from private insurance, private insurance which would then cover common things like doctor visits, prescriptions, etc. can become cheaper by quite a bit.

This would, of course, require authorizing the government with new powers. And if such a system were implemented; I would strongly caution about strictly limiting how government can change it. It would have to be a mandate by the People towards the government. You will do this, you won't hold it up for blackmail (like funding roads is used now). One purpose of government is general welfare of the People. And while it's not explicitly empowering the government, it is a reason for the existence of government itself. In the end, there are some things which federal government does better than private practice or state government. And one thing it's able to take care of happen to be large, aggregated effects.
 
The state requiring you to do something means it's not actually a "right" at all. If it's a "right," you can refuse to exercise it, period.
 
The state requiring you to do something means it's not actually a "right" at all. If it's a "right," you can refuse to exercise it, period.
I wonder how the "health care is a right" crowd will rectify this apparent contradicton.
 
Back
Top Bottom