Revisionist history, and when did mandates become unconstitutional?

[ProSense]

Not a single person who supported any of the other candidates complained that mandates were unconstitutional.

Edwards Explains His Mandate

Later today, John Edwards will announce the specifics of how his mandate works. And they're quite good. Whenever you come into contact with the health care system, or whenever you pay your taxes, you will be asked to provide proof of insurance, presumably a policy number or some similar identifier. If you cannot, you will automatically be enrolled in either a public plan that you qualify for (like Medicaid or S-CHIP) or the cheapest plan offered by his Health Insurance Market. Bills will then get sent out, and if they're not paid, will be collected just like the government collects on student loan debts, or taxes, or anything else, using tools up to and including collection agencies and wage garnishment. (It's notable, here, that Edwards doesn't shy away from saying what his stick will be.)

So at the end of the day, if you don't have health care, your wages will be garnished or your credit will be damaged because a collection agency will see to it that you buy your insurance. You might even go bankrupt! And since it's called a mandate, we'll need a new IRS-like bureaucracy to handle all of this, but it won't be the IRS since a mandate is not a tax, it's just a required fee you pay to a private company.

Edwards was going to garnish wages for premiums.

Obama was and still is more progressive than any of them. A lot of people screaming about the unconstitutionality of mandates never entertained that thought when they supported Edwards and Hillary, who also wanted to garnish wages.

Obama also had the more progressive bill which, as the current bills do, covers catastrophic care.

There is no guarantee that anyone else could have made this much progress toward reforming the system, much less getting this Senate to support a public option.


Granted Obama's position on mandates shifted, but he said before the end of the primary that he would consider it. March 2008:

Mr. Obama says the differential would be far smaller; that he would consider an individual mandate if the numbers left uninsured turned out to be too large; and that imposing a mandate at the outset is unwise because enough people will purchase insurance voluntarily if costs can be brought down.

[provis99]

1. the Edwards plan wouldn't throw people in prison like the current plan.

If you refuse to pay the fine, you go to prison for tax evasion. Debtor's prisons are finally back!

[ProSense]

5. Let's weigh these:

Bogus jail claim vs. garnishing people wages for premiums.

[Jersey Devil]

6. I am hoping to become a Warden at an Insurance Prison

Say, the inmates would really "own a piece of the rock", wouldn't they?

[Hippo_Tron]

43. That's my second choice if I don't get on a death panel

[stevenleser]

8. This has been debunked 10^10^100 times n/t

[DJ13]

2. A mandate on buying insurance is an unfunded mandate

Ask the states whether they think an unfunded mandate is legal.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. The Patriot Act is constitutional too, according to its supporters. eom

[NJmaverick]

4. Thanks for the reminder. Funny how so many have forgotten about this

[Dr Fate]

7. I dont think the mandate will be popular with independents, moderates or swing voters in 2010.

Not to mention much of the DEM base, and certainly not conservative voters.

Whether its revionist history or whether it is unconst. or not might be beside the point.

My question is: Will a majority of voters be for it in 2010?

Hopefully Obama will have created enough jobs by the mid-terms to balance all that out.

[quakerboy]

37. Or 2012. or 2014. or 2016.

[depakid]

9. It'll be interesting to see what 5 members of the Supreme Court think

We may find some strange bedfellows in that decision.

[ProSense]

10. Yeah, people might be surprised

especially since a top Constitutional scholar has basically called the claim, when the RW made it, bogus.

[Dr Fate]

14. Well, at least 5 permanently employed people will like mandates. What about voters in 2010?

With all due respect, I think the OP and many responses would rather skirt that point.

I have yet to meet a single voter, outside of DU who thinks that this mandate will be a popular part of this bill.

[ProSense]

20. I have met people who

don't care one way or the other. Here's the thing: most people are not even thinking about it. For this to have become a big issue, it would have had to mandate something the more than 250 million Americans don't already have and another 50 million Americans aren't desperately wishing they had.

[Dr Fate]

28. Mandates are unpopular now, and I think that the unpopularity will just grow.

I'm not sure that a "dont worry, most voters wont even notice it" strategy is something I can go along with in good faith.

I have met people who dont seem to know or care one way or the other either- they are called swing voters for reason.

Can you swing them in 2010 by arguing that forced mandates are the best way to move forward? I'm not so sure.

If you can get the 50M who you claim will support mandates in 2010 to be the new DEM voting/donor/activist/base, then maybe you will have something after all- but I'm just not seeing it.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Which is an admission that we've acheived 85% coverage in this country w/o a mandate

Which doesn't mean the coverage is good for a lot of people, but it sort of undercuts the whole "people will wait until they're sick to get insurance if there's no mandate" argument. The American people want reform, not watered-down bullshit that forces people to buy a shoddy product.

[quakerboy]

38. Desperately wishing for

BECAUSE WE CANT AFFORD IT. A mandate does not affordability make.

The only reason for a mandate is to make sure a PO works. Without a PO there is no justification for a mandate.

[depakid]

19. Since when has that mattered to the many on the court!

The past 35 years have been replete with convoluted, results oriented jurisprudence- which has in certain cases involved transparently political sophistry.

A plurality decision one way or another wouldn't surprise me (or I daresay many astute observers) in the slightest.

[ProSense]

25. Who said it mattered to the court?

An expert said the claim was bogus. He could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[depakid]

32. That's what you implied

All I stated was that it will be interesting to see what the court comes up with- and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if some odd combination struck the junk insurance mandates down- albeit for differing "reasons."

[ProSense]

35. I did no such thing. n/t

[Armstead]

11. But when were there any "numbers" to change his mind?

"would consider an individual mandate if the numbers left uninsured turned out to be too large"

To me, and maybe I'm just thinking like an average voter who hears it, that implies that if a plan is put in place and after time there are still too many uninsured.

No plan has been put in place to have caused him to make that judgement.

Not to sound conspiratorial, but his change in position does not lead to good comclusions.

Were those "numbers" that cause this change related to profitabiltiy projections of insurers, perhaps?

[ProSense]

13. Here's what I think happened

he weighed the factors, and then changed his mind.

[Armstead]

21. What factors? What was there this year that wasn't last year?

Really. The basic reality hasn't changed.

Presumably, presidential candidates hire smart people to weigh everything to determine what their platforms are. And sometimes things DO happen. But healthcare has not fundamentally changed since last year.

I realize it is not uncommon for candidates to break their promises. But if one actively campaigns against one thing, and then does a U-Turn for no reason, it is not honest and people have a right to be upset and disappointed.

[ProSense]

27. I'm not inside his head, but he changed is mind

Are you disagreeing with that?

[Armstead]

30. I HOPE he changed his mind

I would prefer that to the alternative explanations, though at this point I have my suspicions. I'll just leave it at that.

But that, in a nutshell, is what is really souring me and a lot of other people on the president who promised to be straight with us. TYhese numerous mixed messages (I wanted a public, I didn't really want a public option, I pushed for it, I didn't push for it...etc.)

I sorta thought the days were over when trying to figure out the motives, statements and actions of politicians was like trying to interpret what the latest moves in the Kremlin actually meant.

[Undercurrent]

12. Never

Mandated insurance has never been found to be un Constitutional (or "un American" for that matter), and have been the law in many states for a long time.

Depending on the state, all sorts of businesses, from contractors to private detectives, are mandated to purchase insurance. It could be product liability insurance, fire insurance, premise liability, workers’ compensation, disability coverage, various forms of bonds, etc.

None of these insurance mandates have been found to be un Constitutional.

[Dr Fate]

16. Maybe not unconstitutional, just unpopular with independent, moderate...

...Liberal, conservative & swing voters.

[vaberella]

17. Which make no sense considering so many of those same people are pushing single payer.

Single payer is a mandate, end of story.

[Dr Fate]

31. I dont buy that, and neither do most moderates, independents & swing voters.

If DEMS funded wars, highways, schools, bank-bailouts and everything else through some sort of mandate where individuals had to make purchases to a private entity, then maybe people would see your comparison.

Many people pushing for single payer operated under the notion that the top 1% & corporations would be taxed in a way where they would be paying a higher proportion. You know- "spread the wealth" as Obama once said. Plus, we would have a PUBLIC system that could be more accountable to taxpayers.

That does not seem to be the case at all under individual mandates that force customers into the arms of for-profit, private insurance.

Besides, many independents, moderates & swing voters were never even pushing for single payer-but I can assure that mandates & fines will "not sound right" to many of them.

If single payer is just like mandates, then the leadership should have given us signle payer- then we wouldnt even be arguing right now.

Good luck in convincing voters that they should like mandates- as a long-time canvasser & fund-raiser for DEMS, I dont think I will be up for it.

[boppers]

40. If you don't want to buy into for-profit, buy something else.

Nonprofit, co-op, etc.

[brentspeak]

15. Let's revisit Prosense' history: claiming that Obama would "never" sign a no PO/yes mandate bill

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8661305&mesg_id=8661561

ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Sep-18-09 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Why are you assuming he will sign a bill like that?

There is no indication that such a bill has significant support in Congress.

So why did you feel it necessary to agree with the ludicrous question in the OP, only to clarify what you meant by asking a wholly different question?

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8600535&mesg_id=8600591

ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-19-09 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. If that's the way you want to look at it.

Not the first time he has been wrong. This smells like a media campaign. The notion that the WH believes progressives want a mandate is ludicrous.

[ProSense]

26. You obviously lack comprehension skills. n/t

[jesus_of_suburbia]

41. Luckily most of the regulars on DU know why ProSense posts what she does.

Afterall, we've seen her support anything and everything this administration does.


:D

[vaberella]

18. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If mandates are unconstitutional---SINGLE PAYER

is unconstitutional since it would be a mandate.

[depakid]

22. Nope- not even close, because it involves the inherent power of taxation

where there's a direct textual reference (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) and mountains of precedent for similar programs.

[Armstead]

23. Single payer mandates would not be unconstitutional

They would be payment for a public program, like SS or taxes.

Mandates for a private product are not the same.

[quakerboy]

39. And it will be just as inane every time you say it

But I beleive you.

[Jersey Devil]

24. Workers Comp insurance, auto insurance, all mandated & constitutional

There is nothing novel about a government mandating insurance under the general welfare clause of either the federal or state constitution and they have been upheld by the courts as constitutional.

[Dr Fate]

33. Good point- my question is- Will forced mandates & fines be popular with voters in 2010?

I'm more worried about that point.

[Jersey Devil]

34. Depends on how it is explained

It will be up to the admin (and congress) to explain why mandates are necessary, how adding additional insureds to the pool will help others already paying premiums and how subsidies will help pay the premiums, perhaps by illustrating a comparison between the current costs and what they project.

Trying to figure out now what the public will think in November of 2010 is impossible.

[Gravel Democrat]

42. Many people don't understand the difference b/w state mandates and fed mandates

When was the last time the Feds mandated the purchase of a product
from a for profit private/public company? There has never been a Fed
mandate to purchase car insurance, but Obama wanted people to mix the 2.

"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." James Madison in a letter to James Robertson (1831-04-20)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Madison

The Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution was written to be Amended. Like with booze. In that case, twice.

[Davis_X_Machina]

29. They've been attacked here as unconstitutional since about March 2009

I can find cites as far back as July. It would take a better Googler than I to discover whether the teabaggers got the notion from us, or vice versa -- which should give one pause.

I do remember when Obama's attacks on a mandate were considered evidence he wasn't as serious about HCR as Clinton or Edwards, though.