Richard Epstein explains:
The government finds itself here in a real pickle. Virginia has drawn a clear line that accounts for all the existing cases, so that no precedent has to be overruled to strike down this legislation. On the other hand, to uphold it invites the government to force me to buy everything from exercise machines to bicycles, because there is always some good that the coercive use of state authority can advance. The ironic point is that this is not a commerce-clause argument as such, for in my view any state statute would be subject to the same objection even though the state has plenary police powers.
Read the whole thing.
I think that this also demonstrates the constitutional ignorance of the Democratic leadership and its counsel, and legal incompetence of the Holder Justice Department (not that it was really a winnable case).
I would also add that, as he points out, that this is a demonstration of why state requirements for the purchase of auto insurance don’t lie with the fact that the are states, but with the fact that driving on public highways is a privilege, not a right, and that auto insurance mandates are to protect others from the externalities of your driving, not to protect you from yourself (as health insurance is).
The cases that upheld ACA, like this one, point out that:
1) People “cannot opt out of this market. As inseparable and integral members of the health care services market, plaintiffs have made a choice regarding the method of payment for the services they expect to receive.”
2)” The uninsured, like plaintiffs, benefit from the “guaranteed issue” provision in the Act, which enables them to become insured even when they are already sick. This benefit makes imposing the minimum coverage provision appropriate.”
Since you didn’t like these opinions, you decided not to talk about them. That doesn’t mean they don’t count or didn’t happen.
What is the difference between a right and a privilege? By whose authority are they granted? Are we subjects to a monarchy?
I believe these are arguments after the fact to support the unsupportable… well, supportable by force actually, not by just argument.
The requirement for liability insurance to drive did not always exist and I’m not talking about horse and buggy days.
This is minority report where you are penalized before doing any crime. People should be penalized after they’ve done something to deserve it, not before. Note that the arguments being made for Obamacare are about externalities.
…to become insured even when they are already sick.
Which means it isn’t insurance and we shouldn’t call it that.
The analogy to auto insurance was always just that, an analogy. As the article said, states have plenary police power. That means states can pass any law they want. States can even force you to buy health insurance. The federal government doesn’t have plenary power, only limited, enumerated powers.
Just to finish my thought, the mandate to buy auto insurance is not a by product of “the fact that driving on public highways is a privilege, not a right, and that auto insurance mandates are to protect others from the externalities of …”; it’s simply an exercise of a state’s prerogative to exercise its plenary police power.
States can even force you to buy health insurance.
Epstein disagrees with you. Go argue with him.
Michelle thinks that we cannot leave the care and feeding of children up to parents either.
http://www.breitbart.tv/michelle-obama-on-child-nutrition-we-cant-just-leave-it-up-to-the-parents/
“with the fact that driving on public highways is a privilege, not a right, and that auto insurance mandates are to protect others from the externalities of your driving, not to protect you from yourself (as health insurance is).”
I agree with Ken, but just to elaborate: I’m confused about privileges vs rights. Is walking on a public side walk a privilege? Why not? How about just standing there (no loitering!)
I’m also confused about externalities. Running can be a hazard not only to you, but to those around you — you might plow right into someone! if you run down a public road, can either the state or federal government force you to buy flashing warning lights?
Seems to me that externalities is just the justification the government uses to make you buy something, but either the government can make you buy something or it can’t — I think the justification matter unless there is a constitutional principle embedded in the justification.
I’m confused about privileges vs rights.
As a rule, you don’t have to get a license from the government to exercise a right. The examples of walking and running are fairly weak. If you’re walking or running and cause injury to someone else (e.g. running into someone), then you can be held liable for damages. With driving, the damages you can inflict on others is quite often greater than you could inflict by walking or running.
In every state that I know about, auto owners are required to buy liability insurance to cover damages to others. They aren’t required to buy collision or comprehensive coverage except by their loan companies. Non drivers are not required to buy auto insurance any more than non-boat owners are required to buy insurance for boats.
Well, this, at least is a dumb opinion which I would be surprised to find persuasive at the SCOTUS level:
People “cannot opt out of this market. As inseparable and integral members of the health care services market, plaintiffs have made a choice regarding the method of payment for the services they expect to receive.”
That’s stupid. Certainly people can choose to opt out of the health-care market. They do it all the time. People routinely refuse medical treatment, even when knowing full well it will shorten or end their lives, and they quite often do so because they choose not to spend the money — for example, they may want to spare more of their family’s inheritance. This is why we have “Living Wills,” for God’s sake, and “Advance Directives” and all that sort of stuff.
The notion that everyone who gets sick must and will seek medical care regardless of the cost is farcial on its face, and contradicted every day of the year in every hospital in the land.
Secondly, the fact that “cost shifting” occurs is entirely the result of existing state and Federal law, that prohibits medical providers from discriminating against people without the means or intention to pay, and which establishes taxpayer-funded mechanisms for covering (some) of those costs, and therefore causes the providers, willy nilly, to shift costs from the uninsured to the insured and to the public.
The idea that Congress and the states can establish an evil — cost-shifting to the public — and then cite that very evil as something that needs additional infringements on liberty to cure is a cynical and nasty protection racket, just as bad as the arsonist who promises, for a price, to “protect” you from all the fires that have happened in your neighborhood recently.
The uninsured, like plaintiffs, benefit from the “guaranteed issue” provision in the Act, which enables them to become insured even when they are already sick. This benefit makes imposing the minimum coverage provision appropriate
Unbelievably primitive thinking. In the first place, it is hardly obvious that the plaintiffs will “benefit” from the guaranteed issue provision for the same reason the homeless don’t benefit from rent control.
The actual effect (as opposed to gauzy hypothetical intentions) of either law is to restrict or drive up the price of supply. Rent control makes vacant apartments exceedingly scarce, so that even if, theoretically, a homeless person would be able to afford an apartment, that “right” is vacuous in application, because no such apartment will ever come vacant.
For the same reason, we can expect — indeed, have already seen, in the case of children stand-alone pollicies — that the actual result of “guaranteed issue” provisions will be to either (1) cause insurers to abandon the market entirely, or (2) cause them to raise the price to absurd levels. In either case, just as in the case of rent control, the result is to make a theoretical right to purchase insurance completely void in practise. You can’t, as they say, get blood from a stone, nor make water flow uphill by legislative command.
And in the second place we have, once again, a case where Congress creates a problem — then appeals to the existence of this problem as justification for meddling still further! If Congress hadn’t attempted to legislate that pi = 4.0 or repeal the law of gravity by writing the “guaranteed issue” provisions, there would be no need to “fix” the problem created with the highly unconstitutional individual mandate.
On the issue at hand, I disagree with Epstein that Obamacare is “on the ropes.” Judge Hudson’s opinion — which is quite masterfully crafted, I have to say — is exquisitely cautious, as if he fully expects it to have rough sledding in the Supreme Court. I expect he’s right. We have at least 3 Justices, problem more, who are more or less hacks, people who reach decisions based entirely on their feelings and sympathies, and with very modest regard for legal principle. We may have more — it’s hard to square Gonzales or Kelo, otherwise, let alone respect for the reprehensible Wickard, the regrettable and direct result of the busybody clowns FDR appointed to the Court.
Living Wills usually kick in after somebody’s been sick for a long time. In the experience of my relatives, those directives kicked in after years of sickness. In other words, people can decide not to eat, but any plan based on them not eating is doomed to failure.
We as a society have decided that we don’t want to be India, and let people die in the streets. Now the argument is over how to pay for it.
Rent control is not a good idea. It’s also not applicable to insurance. Rent control fails because there is a limited amount of apartments. Insurance is not so constricted. Also, other provisions, including a premium-to-benefits payout requirement, will limit costs.
Rand,
The decision basically says the law doesn’t pass muster with the Necessary and Proper Clause. Epstein says: “any state statute would be subject to the same objection even though the state has plenary police powers.” The objection Epstein refers to is that “the district court rejected the view that the individual mandate was a necessary and proper offset to the congressional decision…”
Epstein’s sentence is either poorly worded or incomplete. I will finish it for him: “any state statute would be subject to the same objection… but states don’t have to worry about such objections since they have plenary police power and don’t have the necessary and proper clause to overcome as Congress does.”
Again, states can and do mandate the purchase of auto insurance, and/or health insurance unless their own Constitutions say they can’t. That’s what plenary power is. Why they choose to implement mandatory auto insurance or mandatory health insurance is a different question.
“Rent control fails because there is a limited amount of apartments.”
Huh? Could it be they are limited because tenement buildings have “gone co-op” on account of rent control, taking them out of the rental market?
Could cost controls result in doctors retiring early? If apartments are limited, are health care providers, somehow, without supply constraints?
We as a society have decided that we don’t want to be India, and let people die in the streets. Now the argument is over how to pay for it.
I think you should pay for it, Chris. It is blatantly undemocratic to force people to pay for the whims of a few spendthrift bleeding hearts. Given that you support this scheme, it’s only fair that you sacrifice your wealth to support it while leaving my wealth, such as it is, intact.
In the case of driving, the externality is that a poor driver won’t be able to pay for the damage they inflict. In the case of getting treatment at a tax-supported ER, the externality is that a poor person will pass on the treatment cost to all the taxpayers.
Also, this strikes me as odd: if we just had straight socialized health insurance (or car insurance), the government could force us to buy it via taxes, just as we are forced to buy all sorts of government services. There would be no constitutional challenge. With mandatory private insurance, you get more choice, and yet oddly, there is more of a constitutional challenge.
Karl, is taxation with representation “blatantly undemocratic”?
Larry, why shouldn’t there be running licenses? Or, alternatively, maybe there shouldn’t be driver’s licenses. The answer is clear: the government should either require people to buy private general all-purpose liability insurance, or there should be tax-payer supported state government supplied liability insurance.
Living Wills usually kick in after somebody’s been sick for a long time.
Manifestly false. In the State of California, a hospital is required to give ask you if you have one on admission, and in the case of an abrupt illness — stroke, heart attack, which I trust you will recall kill 60% of us sooner or later — it can and may be used to abbreviate heroic care within hours or minutes.
We as a society have decided that we don’t want to be India, and let people die in the streets.
Really, now? Then why doesn’t the government supply me with food? With water? Why must I go out and earn the money to obtain those things all by myself, or starve? In what way is my “right” to have my flu vaccine or blood pressure meds paid for by the taxpayer fundamentally different from a “right” I might assert to have my daily bread or a roof over my head similarly paid for?
Additionally, this is a red herring. We already have a charity program for poor people to get medical care. It’s called Medicaid. No one’s talking about repealing Medicaid. What we’re talking about is paying for medical care for people who are not poor, but who, nevertheless, choose not to buy health insurance. They are in no obvious danger of “dying on the streets.”
Rent control fails because there is a limited amount of apartments.
Really? So we have run out of land? There’s no acreage anywhere in a relevant city for building more apartments? Buildings have reached their extreme vertical limit imposed by the laws of physics, so taller buildings can’t be built?
Apparently you weren’t paying attention. The “limited supply” of apartments about which you speak is a direct result of rent control. It’s not an independent factor that makes rent control fail. Rent control fails because it destroys the creation of new apartments. In exactly the same way, “guaranteed issue” will destroy the availibility of insurance.
Dear Mr. Hallowell: please can the hard-ass, cape-and-gold-brooch Ayn Rand schtick. It’s embarrassing on a teenager; on an adult such a pose is ludicrous.
Mr. Gerrib, while wrong about many things, is right to point out that we as a society (and yes, there is such a thing as “society”, Baroness) have decided that everyone deserves health care. He is also correct in that the only real question is how to pay for it. A system such a Singapore or France has, is, while far from perfect, at least practical; France has the #1-rated health care system in the world, and Singapore’s is #6. (The U.S. health care system is ranked #37, just after that of Cost Rica). A system similar to either, if administered at the state or local level, could work in the U.S., and either would be preferable to the system we have now.
Who pays? You do. I do. And, yes, it’s stealing — but so what? Only liberals, whose social philosophy revolves around the whimsical notion of “rights”, object to being “robbed” in order to pay for the health care of others. Conservatives, who reckon human nature in terms of duties and obligations instead of rights, know that we each have a duty to see to the basic well-being of our fellow men, and pay willingly. Yes, a private system of charity would work better toward this end, but Americans do not want private charity to provide medical care for the indigent. Since 1965 we have determined by our votes over and over again that the government rather than private charity is to be the means by which the poor receive medical care.
If you don’t like it, tough — lobby for a repeal of Medicare, Medicaid, and the rest of it. I’ll back you; the only people who should receive any sort of government cash are military veterans. But until you do that you will please spare me the indignation over taxation. We voted to let them rob us; it is therefore our duty to allow ourselves to be “robbed” for the sake of the poor.
Carl said “What we’re talking about is paying for medical care for people who are not poor, but who, nevertheless, choose not to buy health insurance. They are in no obvious danger of “dying on the streets.”
But plenty of them are not rich and are one catastrophic health event away from incurring medical expenses that they couldn’t possibly afford to pay. And in addition, some of them are somewhat wealthy, and I hope they stay that way, but sadly, sometimes wealth disappears at just the wrong time (or can’t be liquidated at just the right time). Those people are a potential liability on the tax payers.
I suppose they could wear tags that say “I chose not to buy health insurance even though I could afford it — if I am found unconscious, please do not treat. If I wake up and have second thoughts, ignore me.”
B. Lewis – that was an impressive comment!
In the case of getting treatment at a tax-supported ER, the externality is that a poor person will pass on the treatment cost to all the taxpayers.
The cases are entirely different, Bob. If I plow into someone with my car, I directly cause damage to his body or car. If, on the other hand, I go to an ER for treatmetn and decline to pay, I do not “pass on that treatment cost to taxpayers.” The government does. The government can choose not to, in the same way if I decline to go to the supermarket to buy food, and sit in my house on hunger strike, the government declines to use tax money to pay for a strike team to knock down my door and force feed me.
In short, your “externalities” are entirely the creation of government action. They are not intrinsic, as they are in the case of my hitting someone in my car. Government can always create artificial “externalities” if it chooses. For example, government could pay for people to rebuild their houses if they build them in flood zones. Whoops! Now building my house in a flood zones has an “externality” in that the taxpayers are on the hook if a flood wipes it out. TIme to regulate where I can build a house!
The government could pay for all lap-band obesity surgery. Whoops! Now eating too much has an “externality” in that the taxpayers will have to pay to eliminate my flab if I put away too much ice cream and Cheetohs. Time to regulate what I can eat, and how much!
And so on. Once you proceed down a road of believing that “externalities” can be created out of thin air by the government linking individual action with taxpayer money, then absolutely anything can be regulated by government. You are left relying utterly on the good will and good sense of legislatures, and you might as well have no Constitution at all.
If, on the other hand, I go to an ER for treatmetn and decline to pay, I do not “pass on that treatment cost to taxpayers.” The government does. The government can choose not to […]
And there you have it! I actually don’t want to annoy Rand again, but I think this explains why there are no libertarian countries in the world, except for failed states like the Congo.
But plenty of them are not rich and are one catastrophic health event away from incurring medical expenses that they couldn’t possibly afford to pay
Oh give me a break, Bob. Every one of us is “one catastrophic health event” away from being dead, not just broke. Should the government attempt to guarantee that no such thing will ever happen? Ban cars, because 40,000 of us suffer a “catastrophic health event” in them every year that leaves our wife a widow, our children orphans? No more skydiving, no more working in coal mines or deep-sea fishing, no running at night without a reflective vest, no drinking too much or smoking — certainly no more traveling by airplane, where you are “one catastrophic event” away from certain death through absolutely no fault of your own — you put your shoes on the belt to be X-rayed, you submited to the grope…
When you can find vast shoals of people dying in the streets, as Chicken Little above worries about, or tens of thousands living in shacks and eating dog food to pay for their blood pressure meds, then you have a case. Now, it’s a solution in search of a problem.
Furthermore, can we recall that the supposed raison d’etre of Obamacare was not paying for the medical care of the indigent? As I said, we have a program for that — Medicaid — and the Obama Administration could simply have restricted itself to expanding or reforming Medicaid. They did not. They said the whole purpose of this Godforsaken exercise is to reduce overall medical costs. All of our medical costs are supposed to go down. Would you like to tell me how taxing some people so that other people can have a free ride with respect to medical care is going to drive down costs for all of us?
> driving on public highways is a privilege
To me it sounds like a subset of the natural right to transport oneself as one is able. That we require a license to exercise the right is an example that no rights are absolute.
> Mr. Gerrib, while wrong about many things, is right to point out that we as a society (and yes, there is such a thing as “society”, Baroness) have decided that everyone deserves health care.
This sounds correct. Another (non absolute) natural right is to be able to work together to choose enforceable rules under which to live.
> He is also correct in that the only real question is how to pay for it.
I have a useful heuristic that causes me to doubt this based on the use of the word “only”.
> France has the #1-rated health care system in the world…
I have not found the completely subjective rating agency quoted in this case to be useful for the purpose of rating health care systems. Others have, but not me.
Yours,
Tom
Carl, your last comment didn’t make any sense until the last paragraph. The prior paragraphs assume, as Rand does, that mandatory health insurance is to benefit the policy holder — but it isn’t — it is to benefit the taxpayer, as explained in prior comments.
While there are many good points being made, nobody seems to realize what I was getting at. What’s the difference between a right and an privilege?
A privilege is a right restricted to a class. A right is more general. That’s the only difference. So when Rand says…
driving on public highways is a privilege
…it is a right of those (a class of people) with a license to drive.
So you can say a privilege is not a right in that it is a type of right.
My point is, by what authority does the state grant this right? They don’t own the highways, we all do (that what public is supposed to mean.) The reason some politicians believe they can compel us to either buy health insurance or be penalized is exactly the same reasoning used to compel us to buy anything. They do it because they can, not because there is any moral justification what-so-ever.
We got along for years without mandatory car insurance, including liability. Just like we’ve gotten along for years without mandatory health, life, etc. insurance. But once we’ve heated up the frog soup, now we all assume it to be a privilege handed out by the government.
It’s easy to point out the benefits of making everybody pay. All you have to do is assume liberty doesn’t really exist. Not a problem if you are the law. Unless you believe in liberty, then it does present a dilemma.
The connotation is that a privilege is something that is granted. By what authority? It is by force, the only authority that actually exists.
Bob-1, I think that’s kind of circular. The taxpayers are generally likewise the policy holders.
I guess you could claim that these are distinct aspects of the citizen, but you’d have to convince me that there isn’t some way of achieving the good for me as a taxpayer without causing the harm to me as a policy holder (which includes the harm of taking away my choice to not be a policy holder).
Another point about comparing health (or, more correctly, medical) insurance with car insurance is that one is not required to buy car insurance unless one uses the public roads. That means that Farmer John can drive his uninsured, untagged pick-up truck all over the South 40 to his heart’s content. He only needs the tags and insurance if he wants to drive his truck on public roads, both for reasons of funding the roads (tag fees) and financial responsibility (car insurance).
As for those who don’t have medical insurance (among whom I am, thanks to the utterly asinine insurance laws here in the PDRM) being a burden on the rest of society when it comes time to pay an uninsured person’s medical bllls, “that dog doesn’t hunt”, as they say.
Why?
I would be a burden to society if, and only if:
1) I had no other way to pay my bills, such as cash; or
2) “Society”, for some unfathomable reason, decided to pay my medical bills for me.
Scenario #1 applies if I don’t have very much money, which is the case right now. (Thank you, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Reid!)
Scenario #2 applies only if we have government, at whatever level, insisting on picking up the tab for people’s medical treatments.
My answer to those who say that I would be a burden to “society” is this:
The “burden” goes away if I could actually afford insurance (which I can’t right now– Thanks, Annapolis!), or if “society” is not required to pay for my medical bills.
So, if the point of the collectivists is to eliminate “burdens” such as myself, maybe “society” shouldn’t have collective arrangements (like ObamaCare) to pay for my medical care.
“But wait,” I hear the collectivists cry, “You would still be a burden on me, because the hospital that you went to would recover their costs from your medical care by charging me higher fees for my medical care!”
Well, yes. So what? It’s called charity, dude. It’s more moral than taking those costs out of your neighbor’s hide on his W-2 form at the office.
Still don’t want to pay for my medical care? (Not that I really want you to– why should I give you, Mr. Collectivist, the opportunity to play the little fascist, and dictate how I live, eat, work, and play, just to save you a little bit on your tax bill?) Then go to a hospital that doesn’t handle charity cases, like my situation is likely to be, thanks to– drum roll, please!– the collectivist policies that have driven our country’s economy into the ground.
(Sorry for the long rant, Rand, from a long-time reader. I just couldn’t let the idiocy in this comment thread and other comment threads pass without comment.)
Hale Adams
Pikesville, People’s Democratic Republic of Maryland
The prior paragraphs assume, as Rand does, that mandatory health insurance is to benefit the policy holder — but it isn’t — it is to benefit the taxpayer, as explained in prior comments.
You must be joking, Bob. A brand new entitlement to health insurance is created — and you think this will reduce the burden on taxpayers? Excuse me? On what planet do you get less of something that you subsidize? Have you paid any attention to the cost of college lately?
The term “collectivist” is a shibboleth of the shallow thinker. No such thing as a truly individual human being exists — nor can such a creature exist, a fact Aristotle makes plain in the Politics. “Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.”(I, ii).
This is not to say that man has no individual existence; a human being is not a hive animal like a bee or an ant. But neither is he an atomistic, autonomous Randian Self. Aristotle points out that it is impossible for a human being to “never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live” for his own sake. “Man is essentially, or by nature, a ‘social animal’, that is to say, he cannot attain complete happiness except in social and political dependence on his fellow man. This is the starting point of political science.”
It therefore makes no sense to divide people into “individualists” and “collectivists”; rather, we should acknowledge that every human person exists both as an individual soul and as an intrinsic member of a community, and that as such he or she has certain duties and obligations to God, himself, and the members of that community.
Carl, you can either subsidize health costs at a clinic preventatively, or at an ER during a crisis. Have you paid any attention to the cost of an ER visit lately?
—
Rand, you might find the article below dismaying, but Jrman, the article discusses a compromise you might like:
.
Health-reform advocates have little to fear from judge’s ruling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121306759.html?hpid=topnews
Well, I guess, in theory, I might find it dismaying, if Ezra Klein wasn’t a perennial idiot.
“giving people the right to opt out of the mandate if they agree to be ineligible for the subsidies or insurance protections for five years”
In as much as this means “it isn’t a mandate, and no free riding allowed” then sure, I like it. Without more to go on I’m doubting that’s really what it means though (see Rand’s opinion about EK).
Ezra of journolist fame? I avoid reading anything by anyone I recognize from that list. Since they all parrot the same lines, I figure I’ll come across it like it or not anyway.
It therefore makes no sense to divide people into “individualists” and “collectivists”
The fact that humans are indeed social animals does not mean they each have the same respect for individual rights. It’s easy to make arguments for the responsibility of other people just as it’s easy to have an opinion about how other people should live their lives. The less respect you have for an individuals right to decide their own lives the easier it is.
This results in nice sounding justifications that many can nod their heads in agreement with that are completely unjust at their heart. It’s a very slippery slope this taking of liberty. It takes an active fight to keep liberty from the creeping justifications of society.
The term “collectivist” is a shibboleth of the shallow thinker.
Oh horseshit. And no, your Aristotle quotes don’t make it smell any better. Your post could have been reduced to:
It takes a village, people! (Not the Village People)
Which would have at least produced a chuckle.
This is the starting point of political science.
Thanks for defining “shallow thinking”.
Since the government has the power to force people to buy health insurance, does the government also have the power to force certain people to become doctors & nurses? Could they institute some sort of “stop loss” for doctors/nurses thinking of retiring. After all, if health care is a right then you need people capable of providing it.
Rob,
Yes, although perhaps only naturalized citizens will be forced to become doctors and nurses. The United States Oath of Allegiance (I’ve boldfaced the relevant part):
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Bob, why couldn’t the justification used to force people to buy health insurance they may not want not be used to force people to buy health training they may not want? It seems silly to assert that Congress as the right to force native born citizens to buy health insurance but can only force naturalized citizens to provide the care.
I was teasing. I suppose that in a time of national emergency, the government could force people to serve as medics.
But I think your overall concern is too narrow. In general, the US Congress can and does force citizens to buy all sorts of things they don’t want, through taxation. Karl understands this — he complains about taxation too.
Oddly, the founding fathers set up a system where full-blown socialized medicine would be Constitutional, but mandatory private insurance is more subject to Constitutional challenge.
And as Jardinero pointed out above, state governments have far more power than the Federal government and can force you to do all sorts of things, another gift from the Founding Fathers, (and one that Rand doesn’t seem to fully appreciate when he extols the virtues of a limited Federal government.) Currently, state governments just do things like make you buy car insurance you don’t want, and force auto dealerships to stay closed on Sunday, and so forth, but you just watch — they’ll be forcing people to be medics one of these days!
But I think your overall concern is too narrow. In general, the US Congress can and does force citizens to buy all sorts of things they don’t want, through taxation.
By your logic, to use an absurd example, since the Congress forces me, through taxation, to buy breast implants (for wounded soldiers), the government has the power to force me to buy breast implants for myself.
Oddly, the founding fathers set up a system where full-blown socialized medicine would be Constitutional
I doubt any fo the founding fathers would agree with this assessment. It’s listed nowhere in Congress’s enumerated powers.
Currently, state governments just do things like make you buy car insurance you don’t want,
The state can’t force you to buy auto insurance, but they can make is a requirement for driving on public roads. That’s a significant difference. I can drive all day long on my own property with out the slightest bit of auto insurance.
Are VA hospitials listed in the Constitution’s enumerated powers? Well, however you justify VA hospitals, just declare the entire US public to be soldiers in the war on terror, and veterans of the cold war, expand VA hospital service to everyone, and tax accordingly. Ta da!
“Right” vs. “Privilege”
I disagree with the statement
A right is something one has regardless of even awareness of that right. The requirement of law enforcement to issue miranda warnings are an example of this.
A privilege must be asserted. The inability to compel one spouse to testify against the other is an example of this. If the spouse does not assert the privilege, (even do to lack of awareness of it), then it is moot.
And indeed operating a motor vehicle on a public road it is a privilege, and not a right. The key item in that sentence though, is “public road”. If I own a motor vehicle, but do not operate it on any public roads, then I am not required to register it, and hence I am not required to demonstrate proof of financial responsibility.
Hal, if the key item in the sentence is “public road”, then what about walking on a public road? Is that a right or a privilege? And if the difference between driving and walking is the ability to cause harm, then I would suggest that operating a sufficiently dangerous vehicle on private land might require a license too. Surely readers of this blog will think of such a vehicle…. I think the distinctions remain pretty unclear.
Regarding the U.S. being ranked 37th in healthcare, I question that ranking. Many ratings I have seen are substantially based upon life-expectancy, the calculation of which is not consistent across various nations. The primary difference is caused by differences in infant mortality between the various nations. Much is made of the fact that the U.S. infant mortality rate is 6.14 per 1000 live births, while Cuba‘s is only 5.72. I do not believe for one second that Cuba’s maternity and birthing care is in any way superior to that in the U.S. Live births are not categorized in the same way from nation to nation, but infant mortality is calculated as if they are. In the U.S. an infant born extremely pre-maturely, or with some severe, life threatening condition, who then dies is categorized as a live birth, and also an infant death, thus increasing the infant mortality rate. In most other countries, this same case would never be categorized as a live birth in the first place, and has no impact on the infant mortality rate.
The degree to which the Constitution is being flat-out ignored in here is staggering.
If the Constitution is no longer the basis of our laws, what is? If we are no longer a “Nation of Laws, not of Men”, then who shall be our King? After all, if you’re going to ignore half the Constitution outright, why not ignore the parts that call for elections? Where is the line that limits what individuals with political or military power are permitted to do to you? Right now, that line is starting to look like fiat currency; not actually backed by anything, subject to inflation from printing whenever it suits those who control the press.
(Note: this is meant as an analogy, not some Paulian currency diatribe. Please respond, if at all, to the issue of the power of the Constitution vs. that of individual actors with power.)
Bob-1,
The use of the federal aid interstate highway system facilities in Kansas by pedestrians, bicycles, horse-drawn vehicles, animals led, driven or ridden, other non-motorized traffic or motor driven cycles is prohibited.
Are VA hospitials listed in the Constitution’s enumerated powers?
Since the power to fund a military is authorized by Constitution, it isn’t much a stretch to assert Congress has the power to fund services for military veterans. It’s a huge stretch to assert that since Congress has the authority to regulate insterstate commerce, they also have the authority to make me buy certain products from private entities.
Well, however you justify VA hospitals, just declare the entire US public to be soldiers in the war on terror, and veterans of the cold war, expand VA hospital service to everyone, and tax accordingly.
When I was in the military, in addition to health care, they provided me clothing, housing, and food. Using your logic, you could assert Congress has the authority to draft everyone, provide everyone food, clothing, etc and then order them to do whatever Congress thought in the national interest. I think they have a word for a state like that, but the name escapes me. In all seriousness though, lets say you did that, most doctors and nurses don’t want to work for the VA and the ones that do are typically not in the best in their field (to be kind). How do you deal with that problem? Oh, wait, I remember, force doctors and nurses to work for the VA and “Ta Da!”, problem solved. We’ll just force people to buy health insurance and then when we force doctors & nurses to treat them. It’s amazing how all the problems in the world can be solved through the judicious use of force.
Bob-1,
In other words it is the fact that the activity takes place on a “public road” that is key here, and not between the difference driving and walking’s ability to cause danger to others.
Hal & Rob, let me if I can sum it up. Hal points out that traveling down a public road, even via walking, is a privilege. Rand points out that if you are exercising a privilege (as opposed to a right), then the government can legitimately require you to purchase things, like a license and insurance.
So! Now we have two solutions! We can either draft everyone, and then provide them with socialized health care, or, since that option isn’t very palatable, we can simply write the law such that anyone who wants the privilege of traveling down a public road must purchase medical insurance.
People will remain free to stay off public roads if they wish.