published Thursday, March 29th, 2012

Troubling medical 'mandate'!

We all, of course, want all of our people to have whatever medical care they may need.

We surely realize that it is a good idea for us all to have sufficient medical care insurance, either in connection with where we work or individually.

But can you find anything -- anything -- in our Constitution of our United States that says -- or even implies -- that our federal government has the legal power to mandate or in any way legally to require us to buy medical care insurance?

Of course, there is no such constitutional requirement.

But it's a issue that is before the Supreme Court of the United States.

President Barack Obama's plan is to require every American to carry medical insurance.

In questioning this week, the justices of our Supreme Court properly asked whether the American people can be required by law to buy burial insurance, cell phones, broccoli -- or medical insurance, The Associated Press reported.

About 30 million Americans reportedly do not have medical care insurance. But the Supreme Court justices now will decide whether it is constitutional for President Obama and a majority in Congress to require it.

Justice Anthony Kennedy asked whether a government requirement of the purchase of medical insurance "is a step beyond what our cases allow." He said that allowing the government to force citizens to buy health insurance would "change the relationship" between the role of government and U.S. citizens, The AP reported.

Justice Kennedy asked: "Do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution" for an individual mandate to buy medical insurance?

He further commented: "I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree ... the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries. That's my concern in the case."

Chief Justice John Roberts said the principle involved with requiring the purchase of health insurance boils down to this: "Purchase insurance in this case, [and it's] something else in the next case."

"If the government can do this, what else can it not do?" The Associated Press reported Justice Antonio Scalia asked.

We may agree that buying health insurance is a good idea. But is having the federal government of the United States order individual Americans to buy medical insurance a proper interpretation of our Constitution?

There obviously is nothing in our Constitution that clearly says so.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
dfclapp said...

It is obvious from following the Supreme Court review of this case, that the opinion of its constitutionality is divided even among the nine individuals with the most intimate knowledge of the legal particulars and precedents. I don't think that I or the editorial writer in this paper are in a position to provide a better judgment.

That said, we can follow the simple logic of common sense while we wait. Since we and governments end up directly or indirectly paying the cost for the uninsured in higher premiums, we do indeed have a legitimate fiscal right to expect people to take some responsibility for their own health insurance. Car insurance is often required for the same reason. If I have to pay your bill, then it stops being just about your freedom.

March 29, 2012 at 6:30 a.m.
joneses said...

The 4 liberal activist Supreme Court Justices, Breyer, Keagan, Sottomayor and the most activist Ginsburg will always shred the United States Constitution and vote for the most activist liberal way on all issues. Their liberal activism has been proven time and time again. The activist Supreme Court Justice Kagan should actually recuse herself as she helped prepare the defense of the unconstitutional Obamacare. If these activist liberal justices vote to uphold the unaffordable Obamacare the freedom of the American citizen will be forever ruined. This will open the door to the government to tell us were we can live, work, be educated, what we can buy. The government will be able to dictate what we can do with every aspect of our lives. This is what the liberal agenda is all about, total control of every aspect of everyone's lives.

March 29, 2012 at 8:23 a.m.
holdout said...

I don't think you can compare it to car insurance df. I can see where the government can tell you that you cannot drive without it but that is not the same as saying you must buy it. The government cannot require you to have a driver's license but it can prevent you from driving public roadways without it. I do not think the government has the right to force anyone to buy anything. That portion of the law needs to go. That is the part of the healthcare law that troubles me. That is a door that we most certainly do not want to go through.

March 30, 2012 at 8:05 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

You do realize that the mandate was a republican idea, right? To keep the private insurance companies happy and keep federal govt out of the insurance business?

March 30, 2012 at 8:18 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.