IJ on the Individual Mandate

If government-mandated health insurance is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) case is argued in March 2012, the Institute for Justice warns in its amicus brief that there will be dire and predictable threats to individual liberty and voluntary relations that have been the foundation of American contract law for centuries.

Constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley, who is the executive director of the Institute's Florida Chapter and who co-authored IJ's brief, said, "The individual mandate violates a cardinal rule of contract law—to be enforceable, all agreements must be voluntary. The Framers understood this, and would never have given the federal government the power to force individuals into lifelong contracts of insurance. The Court should not allow the government to exercise this unprecedented and dangerous power."

If the U.S. Supreme Court fails to strike down the individual mandate, there will be nothing to stop Congress from forcing people into other contracts against their will—employment contracts or union membership, for example. If we still have a constitutional republic in which the federal government's powers are limited, then the Court should strike down this law.

The Institute for Justice's brief is the only amicus brief filed with the Court that examines this case in the context of the history of contract law. The brief illustrates how the Supreme Court has recognized the principle of consent in commercial relations in its Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment cases, and it explains why the U.S. Supreme Court has a key role in acting as a check against this unconstitutional power grab by the federal government.

[esan]

Our individualized most powerful freedom is our ability to choose!! Each individual is inherently capable of making good (beneficial) choices or bad (non-beneficial) choices. There are good laws that curb many harmful bad choices and bad laws that cause limitation thinking. Ultimately if one (law maker) has long term thinking... they'll realize which laws are really good or bad, by remembering that what's good for the few must be good for all or ultimately it's good for no-one!!

[kraorh]

@MrHarrytoor Also, you only have to get liability insurance, and you technically only have to get insurance if you're driving on public roads, assuming you're voluntarily choosing to drive. You don't have to insure your own car or yourself from medical injuries. And if you drive your car only on private property, you don't have to get even liability insurance. Finally, that's also only under state plenary authority - the feds don't have that legislative power.

[jscottupton]

@jasonaorr Also...it is only because you are driving on GOVERNMENT HIGHWAYS that you have to get car insurance. You don't need it if you only drive your car around your back yard.

[ryanpmurphy]

@jackbawz Government only mandates car insurance for drivers. If I don't have a car, or I don't drive that car on public roads, I do not need car insurance. Since the government owns the roads, it is not a mandate, but a part of an agreed upon contract between the driver and the owner of the roads.

That is a completely different scenario than auto insurance, there is no way to opt out of the health insurance mandate.

[gsh]

Unless you can take care of yourself, you cannot take care of anyone else. So, unless I have a job, I can't take care of myself. If business cannot make money, there will be no businesses to hire me. If the government doesn't get out of the way, businesses will continue to flee to other countries and true unemployment will continue to rise.

The best thing the government can do to help people is to quit trying to help people directly and let people succeed or fail on their own abilities.

[gsh]

@stanleyjforrest Whether or not the insurance company pays is irrelevant. If they refuse to pay, that is a problem for the car owner to resolve. Whether or not the person driving the car has any fiscal or legal responsibility is up to the law in that state.

That still doesn't mean that it's illegal for a person other than the owner to drive that vehicle or that people that don't own cars must have insurance.

So, comparing 0bamacare to car insurance is an unsound comparison.

[gsh]

@pudso1 If the government wasn't mucking about in the health care business, it would be far cheaper. The government only pays a fraction of full cost of care for Medicare patients, so the hospitals and doctors must make up the difference somewhere. That means the insurance companies pay more. Then the insurance rates go up for everyone. If health insurance companies were allowed to offer coverage ala-carte like car insurance can, you'd see prices drop drastically.

[gsh]

@cooljj82 No one is forcing a person to have car insurance if that person chooses not to drive, are they? The cost of car insurance is borne by only those that choose to drive.

In fact, even then they are not actually required to have car insurance. Only car OWNERS are required to have car insurance. So a person can drive without having to bear the cost of having a car insurance policy as long as the owner of the vehicle has it.

[ghpatriot]

@MrHarrytoor Driving is a choice that people make. Thats the difference.

[residentzombie]

@pudso1 This is also why America has the most advanced, easiest to access, and best quality medical equipment across the world as well. The answer to fix the high cost of healthcare is to open competition up in this industry as much as possible and try to end the collusion of healthcare lobbyists and politicians to monopolize certain aspects of the industry.

[pluto]

So you can afford it. I guess it all boils down to what procedure you might one day need. I mean to fix a torn tendon, you're ta;lking at least $30, 000 and that's with insurance.

[gsh]

@stanleyjforrest The power to tax has absolutely no bearing on this. In fact, the federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate safety inspections, health insurance, car inspections, birth control or 90% of the garbage they force on us.

If you don't believe me, read the Constitution. The Interstate Commerce clause has been abused and stretched far beyond it's original scope. Likewise the General Welfare clause merely gives the reason for the items found in Art. 1, Sec. 8.

[sovereignbrand]

If you think that justice comes after loss you are corrupted. A life is only worth living when in justice, always fight tyranny lethally

[MrHarrytoor]

A point of clarification, please: The State of California forces drivers to purchase liability insurance or else to show proof of self-insurance. How is this different from the Obamacare individual mandate to buy health insurance? If it isn't, is the California law also an example of a contract under duress?

[pluto]

So if you needed a surgery that would cost you more than what you have in assets, the hospital wants their money now. They will say, 'Don't worry dear, we'll put you on Charity Care, '' but what they don't tell you is that when an uninsured person gets charity care, they raise everybody else's healthcare expenses to bail the uninsured out.

[gsh]

@stanleyjforrest So if a person owns a car and lets a friend borrow it every other weekend to go see their parents, who is actually on the insurance? Not the friend, I can assure you. However, if the friend crashes the insurance still pays, right?

So the friend gets the use of a car on a regular basis and pay nothing for car insurance. Why? Because the government isn't forcing him to. The car owner is assuming the risk by loaning out the car. If they're smart, their charging the friend a bit.

[Eyedunno]

"If we still have a constitutional republic in which the federal government's powers are limited, then the Court should strike down this law."
I don't think we still do though. :(

[civildisorder]

This video needs better tags to get more views. If you don't mind I may re-upload this.

[rightwing]

WHat about coercing the Insurance companies to give insurance to people with pre-existing conditions? Isn't that coerced contract also?

[StephenNu]

This is not an issue that the courts will willingly fix. Taking the means to mandate a sociological outcome appears to drive this issue. People with power want a successful socialized medicine and will take the financial steps to stabilize it, despite the history of contracts and the Constitution. We are now living in a post-Constitution America -- if we allow them to continue such policies.